Archetype: A Story of Buddhist and Mormon Connections

Running head: ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 1
ARCHETYPE: A Story of Buddhist & Mormon Connections
by
LANDON BLAINE HASSON
Senior thesis submitted to my Integrated Studies Board of Utah
Valley University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a
Bachelor of Science in Integrated Studies
RELIGIOUS STUDIES AND PSYCHOLOGY
Orem, Utah
December 2013
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 2
Abstract
A Mormon and a Buddhist become friends and begin a conversation. The value of interfaith
dialogue is explored. The disciplines of psychology and religious studies are integrated into a
meaningful pattern. The product is a contribution to the exploration of human nature and the
work of comparative religion. Mormonism and Buddhism are briefly introduced and compared.
An in depth treatment of the concept and language of archetype is offered, especially as shaped
by Carl G. Jung. Archetypal analysis is presented as a useful instrument and paradigm for
building bridges across worldviews, improving respect and appreciation for persons whose
beliefs might be different than one‟s own, and for adding value and new insights into existing
beliefs that are held to be sacred and important. Mormonism and Buddhism are used for a case
example of archetypal analysis. The author argues that an archetypal “lens” can aid in becoming
aware of the intricacy and intimacy of the human experience. He suggests that the concept and
language of archetype offers a prototypical pattern and model for answering the fundamental
questions of similarities, differences, and the underlying reality from which our physical world
has sprung.
Keywords: archetype, Buddhism, comparative religion, interfaith-dialogue, Mormonism,
ontology, philosophy, psychology, religious studies.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 3
Introduction and summary
This study is a contribution to comparative religion and an instrument for archetypal
analysis. Although it may not appear so, this is a story of how archetypal narratives have merged
in meaningful ways or how connections between worldviews can lift people to new heights and
enlighten the mind. I integrate theory from the disciplines of religious studies and psychology.
The conversation which follows, in the prologue, is an example of interfaith dialogue by two
persons who possess great interest in understanding and becoming mindful of human nature, or
the complexity of the human problem.
It is both my intention to promote interfaith dialogue and to offer a new paradigm for
examining and becoming aware of the intricacy and intimacy of the human experience.
However, this work is not concerned with humans alone, for it is an analysis of all that was, now
is, and will be. Archetype is the language that can speak to these ends; rather, it is my argument
that the concept and language of archetype offers a prototypical pattern and model for answering
the fundamental questions concerning ultimate reality. This does not disaffirm the worldviews
and religions that are likewise helpful in this effort; instead, this is a platform upon which to
stand for those who are interested in the work of reaching across boundaries that otherwise
divide.
This archetypal story is centered on Jesus and the Buddha. As the narratives tell, upon
them both was imparted an awareness of all sentient lives; past, present and future – for every
living thing. Each came out of their experience with perfected empathy, compassion, and
wisdom to impart to all beings. Mormons should understand this connection as a confirmation
that all things testify and symbolize the Messianic mission of Christ. Buddhists should find a
deeper appreciation for the Awakened One as they see how Lord Buddha was the original and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 4
only known type of the atonement of Christ, as explained in Mormon restoration scripture. Both
the Mormon and Buddhist narratives serve to illuminate and add context to the other. Although
this story seems to only build bridges between Mormonism and Buddhism, this same pattern
applies generally.
Finally, I enjoy testing the line between the academy and the believers. I find myself
having to enter into both worlds to understand a broader view of the world. Additionally, I have
come across the problem of trying to translate archetypal language into English, for the sake of
this presentation. Upon review, I have observed that persons have greatly appreciated my
approach in one area, while others have taken great pause or even distaste to the very same
section. Words so often get in the way of understanding; however, let them be the best symbolic
referent that I can offer to my work.
Outline and procedure
Here, I present a brief summation of what follows. Chapter 1 was originally titled, “What
is Mormonism?” The intention of this section is not to explain Mormon theology in depth. It is
written to provide someone who is not familiar with Mormonism an overview of the Mormon
worldview. For this reason, I emphasize “the plan of salvation,” or what I argue is an accurate
model for demonstrating the ontological assumptions of Mormonism. Chapter 2 follows a similar
pattern as chapter 1. However, given that the Buddhist narrative has a more complex and lengthy
history, I spend a little more time telling the story of Buddhism. I spend less time explaining the
teachings of Buddhism, because there is a great variety in the interpretations of Buddhist beliefs.
Rather, there are many schools of thought that approach the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama,
and I felt it right to only mention the fundamental or general principles of Buddhism. This
chapter will likewise offer a fair view of the Buddhist worldview, as it has already been reviewed
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 5
by multiple Buddhist practitioners. In fact, both chapters 1 and 2 have been reviewed by
representatives of each faith tradition; their feedback has been invaluable to this work.
Chapter 3 is not considered to be a complete comparison of Mormonism and Buddhism,
but it is meant to show some divergences between the two faiths, in light of the fact that the
majority of this article focuses on similarities and connections. It might be the case that humans
have a tendency to dichotomize or to naturally see (look for) differences among things. This
might be a productive effort to promote individuality and to assign unique properties to things or
it might be a destructive effort that creates isolation, contention, or us versus them mentalities.
This study is written under the assumption that finding connections between worldviews can be
valuable. I further claim that such efforts can be seen as strengthening each worldview, by
adding additional content and meaning to their own respective narratives.
Chapters 4 and 5 lay the groundwork for the centerpiece of my analysis which takes place
in Chapter 6. Archetype is the “lens” through which I do my analysis and storytelling. Therefore,
I found it important to present two chapters that both define this framework and demonstrate the
value and potential uses for the language of archetype.
A skilled reader and an experienced scholar of comparative religion will observe many
connections that I have not found or addressed between the two religions in discussion. The
purpose of chapter 6 is to offer the reader a new opportunity to compare two worldviews with the
concept of archetype at the forefront of the mind. I do this so the reader may consider the value
of archetype as a concept or language for the work of inter-faith dialogue, or for the work of
comparative religion. I discuss the following questions: “Why are their archetypal images for the
personification of evil?,” “What do archetypes teach us about ourselves, our human nature?,” and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 6
“What about the story of enlightenment and atonement? What do these experiences teach us
about humanity, unity, love, understanding, charity, wisdom, compassion, etc.?”
I write chapter 6 in dialogue format because I have felt that this approach can tease a
different part of the mind in order to offer insight. Consider Plato and other ancient lore, and you
will know that this method is nothing new. The reflections portion of chapter 6 is intended to
allow a reader to ponder how the characters of each religion might consider the significance or
meaning of an archetypal approach to studying the worldviews of another. The reflections have
been written by a Buddhist practitioner and a Mormon adherent. Chapters 7 will tell a different
story, it tells my story. Here, you will hear my biases, opinions, and conclusions.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 7
Prologue - Conversation
Words that are strictly true seem to be paradoxical
-The Tao, Teaching 78.4
Once upon a mountain, two travelers crossed paths and began a conversation. They soon
discovered that one called himself a Mormon (M), the other called he a Buddhist (B). They were
neither near the Himalayas nor the Wasatch Range. They were somewhere else, somewhere that
no one had ever been. A question was brought to the mind of the Mormon. Fortunate for him, his
new friend, was a wise Buddhist Monk:
M: My friend, why do you think that David fell?
B: Who is David?
M: David was an Israelite, favored by God and blessed with extraordinary strength and
faith.
B: What did David do?
M: David stood against the Philistine army as only a small boy, to fight the single
greatest warrior in the adversarial ranks. Goliath, who he slew, was about 10 feet tall.
David‟s fame grew, and because of his faith in God, he was a great leader among men.
God anointed him as king of Israel, gave him many wives, and prospered the kingdom
under David‟s rule.
One day, David was supposed to be with his men on the battlefield, but he stayed home
and “happened” to see Bathsheba bathing in her home below. David continued to watch
her, and lust grew within him. He invited her into his chambers and consequently slept
with her. Not only was this unauthorized sexual relations, but Bathsheba was already
married and she became pregnant from her “activities” with David.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 8
To cover his sins, David called home her husband from the battlefield so that it would
look like her husband got her pregnant. However, David must have still wanted to be
with Bathsheba or wanted the child or both, because he sent her husband into the
frontlines of a battle where he would surely die. He did die, and David took Bathsheba as
his wife.
B: What is meant that “David fell?”
M: God blessed David above all men, yet David sinned against God and thereby lost
those blessings and favor. David was under covenant not to murder or commit adultery. If
David would have honored his covenants he would have eventually been exalted, that is,
he would have sat with Gods and Goddesses, he would have become just as the Father.
David fell from exaltation, most specifically because of murder. We hear later that David
repents and is loved by the Lord, but the Lord recently said that “… [David] hath fallen
from his exaltation” (D&C 132:39).
B: Did not David then “fall” because of desire which is the cause of all suffering?
M: That sounds reasonable, but how does desire cause all suffering?
B: This is one of the four noble truths of Buddhism, that desire is the cause of all sorrow
and suffering. The enlightened person is free from suffering when she sees the cause of it.
Or, insight into the true nature of reality brings enlightenment, enlightenment yields
freedom from our anguish or pain. To understand the cause of suffering, one must
understand that there is no self. There is no David, there is only emptiness. When one
understands this, they will no longer suffer.
M: There is only emptiness? What does this mean?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 9
B: Our suffering comes from our desire to separate everything, to create dichotomous
realities. Everything is emptiness.
M: Are you speaking about a unity of all things? If there is only emptiness…which
is…Everythingness, does this imply a necessary connectedness of all things to all things?
B: Yes
M: How does this understanding bring enlightenment or freedom from suffering?
B: Does not your Jesus say that, “the truth shall set you free”? Did not Jesus say that he
and the father are one, and then pray that his disciples would also be one with them?
M: Yes, this is true.
B: Then you understand that the enlightened mind can see the unity of things, but you do
not understand the nature of Jesus and his disciples. You see them as individual selves
with individual autonomy.
M: Am I to see you and I as not you and I?
B: That is a beginning.
M: A beginning to what? I do not understand.
B: Who does not understand?
M: Me! “I”, the person you are talking with.
B: Who is the person I am talking with?
M: If who is I, then I am who. Who are you to say otherwise . . . ?
B: The question I am asking is, what is it that is you? What is the who with whom I
speak?
M: I am a human being, and I certainly have my individual autonomy.
B: Then you are still asleep, you do not see.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 10
M: And how can you be so certain of this? Perhaps I am the one who sees and you are yet
to understand.
B: I am happy to be the one who will yet understand.
M: Who are you?
B: I am emptiness. Pure consciousness.
M: And this is the truth that I am to understand? David fell because he did not understand
that he was nothingness, or emptiness or pure consciousness!?
B: Thou sayest…
M: Very funny. But, perhaps you are right. I am just thinking of a scripture in the Book of
Mormon. King Benjamin is speaking to his people, before his death, “. . . My friends and
my brethren, my kindred and my people, I would again call your attention, that ye may
hear and understand the remainder of my words which I shall speak unto you. For behold,
if the knowledge of the goodness of God at this time has awakened you to a sense of your
nothingness, and your worthless and fallen state” (Mosiah 4: 4-5). Here, I always read
nothingness as being used for comparison, to contrast the power of God to the lack of
power in man.
You seem to be adding a new context; IN FACT, King Benjamin even compares this
nothingness to a “state” of being! As if there is something intrinsic about our human
nature, that it is a state of nothingness. This reminds me also of Moses after he was taken
into the presence of God, “And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours
before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto
himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had
supposed” (Moses 1: 10, emphasis added).
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 11
B: Now you are beginning to see.
M: Yes, I think so. Here, look at these words with me. I think Mormon is writing
commentary on Nephite history, “Yea, how quick to be lifted up in pride; yea, how quick
to boast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity; . . . yea, how slow to walk in
wisdom‟s paths!” Here the problem is illuminated, “Behold, they do not desire that the
Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them . . . O how great
is the nothingness [emphasis added] of the children of men; yea, even they are less than
the dust of the earth” (Helaman 12: 7).
It‟s a little hard for me to conceptualize, but it seems like the Nephites are being rebuked
for all their wicked desires, and that the state of all men is a state of nothingness. An
awareness of our nothingness helps us root out our desires, which then helps us come
unto the light. Wow, that sounds very, very Buddhist.
B: That is exactly what Buddhism is about. When one follows that path, they are then
filled with wisdom and compassion. One who has followed this path will live selflessly,
for the benefit of all sentient life.
M: So, desire really is the cause of suffering. I can now perceive that the devil fell from
the light of truth, because of his desires. The devil desired everything; he would not
acknowledge the state of his nothingness before the Father. Lucifer desired God‟s power
and God‟s glory.
B: In Buddhism, we have a similar figure who we call Mara. Mara is the symbol for
delusion. Mara is the god of death and desire. Mara is found in all unenlightened beings,
people who are still asleep, and he tempts man away from seeing reality as it really is. To
be free of suffering is to be free of Mara.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 12
M: To be filled with desire, is it the same as to be filled with delusion?
B: Yes
M: Satan and Mara, do you see them as filled with desire?
B: Yes
M: Hmm. . . . How about the desire for good? Is it not good and reasonable to desire the
truth, or to desire enlightenment?
B: It might seem a great irony, to some, that one must have no desire for enlightenment to
attain enlightenment. One must remove their own self out of the equation as to be on the
path to Nirvana. It is another great irony that one must lose themselves to find
themselves; sound familiar? Enlightenment is the byproduct of self-less living, to live as
though there is no self. Compassion and wisdom are yoked with truth and enlightenment.
So, consider now my response to your question: Had David been less concerned with
satisfying himself and more concerned with the selfless service that kingship implies, this
king would have never “fallen.” But, I do not know much about this story, nor your
beliefs.
M: Well, yours have been most helpful to me, thank you.
B: With gladness.
The Monk was happy to help a friend along his path, but the Mormon was now thinking about
other questions, “How can I have more compassion and wisdom, that I might avoid pitfalls like
David’s?,” “Is it not the nature of the human experience to fall and fall again?,” “Why is it
considered so terrible to sin against greater light or knowledge?,” “Has there ever been an
enlightened person, according to Buddhist thought, who later committed an act of selfishness, or
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 13
would a Buddhist just say that such a person was never enlightened to begin with?” After some
time, the friends crossed paths again:
M: Hello friend, care to entertain me on matters of life and death?
B: Certainly, what particular matters have you in mind?
M: What matters indeed? And to see into my mind, I hope so. . . I am thinking perhaps or
perhaps not metaphysically, wanting to perceive the physics of choice. I am imagining
karma as a real substance that attaches to the soul, as if it were metaphorical for light and
darkness. That is to say, all choices either bring light or darkness into the soul.
B: Do you call darkness the absence of light?
M: Yes
B: Then what you are saying appears consistent or similar to the concepts of good and
bad karma – found in Buddhism. But, what do you mean by “the physics of choice”?
M: If physics were complete and metaphysics complete, they would be the same thing.
Metaphysics seems to talk about the reality that we do not yet understand, and is the
source for questions and experiments that Physicists work with. Where physics and
metaphysics meet, that is where I ask from. But until this conversation is complete, let me
call it the “metaphysics of choice.” Yet, I am searching for the physics of eternal light
and eternal darkness, the physics of karma, the physics of things not seen with the natural
eye, but perceived with the mind and heart. By the physics of choice I mean, what
happens to the soul or root intelligence when a choice is made?
B: Would knowing the answer change the way you live?
M: I should think so.
B: Why?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 14
M: Knowing the truth yields a freeing and happy feeling. I live better and have more
compassion for my brother when I gain knowledge of truth.
B: You have asked a question that I cannot answer; I do not understand the “physics of
choice.” But I ask you to consider again, would the answer to this question matter?
M: Do you believe humans are free to choose?
B: I believe humans are ignorant. As long as humans remain ignorant, they are not free.
M: What of those who are not ignorant, like the Buddha, are they free?
B: Yes
M: Did the Buddha not choose to follow a path to enlightenment? Did he not choose to
be free?
B: Choose, yes. Freedom came later. The path to enlightenment is the path to freedom.
M: What is freedom?
B: Release from Samsara, to no longer wallow in ignorance and continual rebirth, this is
freedom – to behold reality as it truly is.
M: How can one be free if they are ignorant to the truth?
B: One who is ignorant is not free.
M: Then it seems to me that the answer to my question is important; rather it is necessary
for freedom. If we do not understand the consequence of our choices then we are as
ignorant as an unruly child. And I believe that to fully understand the consequences of
our choices, we must understand the actual or physical consequences of our choices.
Perhaps you would agree that every choice might cause us to become more ignorant or
closer to enlightenment?
B: Good or bad karma, yes.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 15
M: Then I will call good karma, light; and bad karma, darkness. Ignorance, then, is to
possess darkness in our beings. Enlightenment, then, is a “blowing out” of ignorance, all
darkness removed and only light remains.
B: Yes. Now I have a question for you. You say that the Devil was once an angel of light.
Was he then an enlightened being?
M: Inasmuch as he was an angel of light, then by our definition, we might say he was
enlightened.
B: How do you understand that an enlightened being became the devil – source of all evil
– father of lies? That he has no light in him?
M: Just as all ignorant beings might potentially become enlightened, so too, might
enlightened beings potentially become ignorant.
B: Is the Devil ignorant?
M: Yes
B: Do you not say that the Devil reigns with blood and horror on the earth; that the Devil
knows all the tricks to tempt man to sin, and that the Devil knows all of us by name?
M: The Devil might say that he reigns, but I would not say this is true. The Devil
remembers each of us from before the creation of the earth, and yes, the Devil knows
how to tempt man toward sin.
B: Given the Devil‟s knowledge, would you say that he has an enlightened understanding
of the world, perhaps reality?
M: I would not; I maintain that he is ignorant.
B: Will you explain?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 16
M: Certainly. Adolf Hitler and Mohandas Gandhi each knew more about the world than I
do. They each knew more than I do of how to influence people. They had each read more
and studied more than I. It is therefore tempting to say that compared to them, I am more
ignorant. However, ignorance means something different to both you and me.
Ignorance, as we have discussed, is a measure of darkness or blindness that is contrasted
with light. I would say that Gandhi is more enlightened than I, and I am more enlightened
than Hitler. Just as humans build up a false reality all about them (perhaps because of
desires), so has the Devil built up a false world. The Devil has constructed a reality of
utter darkness, a kingdom of ignorance, an abyss of lies and deceit. His conception of
reality is utter foolishness; it is an almost comical and foolish misery. Therefore, he is
ignorant and has no light in him.
The Devil is like an evil analyst who may have a vast and complex understanding of the
functions of both consciousness and unconsciousness, yet there is not virtue in him. Of
course we must understand what knowledge is, and it is not facts, information, and
memories. The Devil has plenty of that. Knowledge is light and truth, and most people
commonly mistake knowledge for information, theory, fact, etc. However, any person
with normal capacities can acquire this type of knowledge, and yet, never come to a
knowledge of truth; a very different kind of knowledge, the only kind of knowledge that
matters in the end.
B: Yes, Buddhism also perceives that knowledge is something quite different than facts,
information, and memories. I am pleased with your explanation of the devil, but I have
another question.
M: Ask.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 17
B: You stated earlier that ignorant beings might become enlightened and that enlightened
persons might become ignorant. Can God become ignorant?
M: If He did, then he would cease to be God. It is like trying to imagine that Jesus,
Gandhi, or the Buddha was to become selfish, violent, and wicked. They would no longer
be Jesus, Gandhi, or the Buddha; at least the history on them would be something quite
different. A Mormon would likely tell you that God would never choose to let darkness
in, but restoration scripture lends that such a choice is possible however unlikely is might
be. How that works, I don‟t know.
Eons of time had passed, whether it was hundreds of reincarnations later or a mere moment of
eternity that slipped between them, they spoke again. This is what was said:
B: Once upon a time, we talked about choice. We called it the “physics of choice,” do
you remember?
M: Yes, that was a wonderful conversation.
B: Have you thought more about it?
M: I have, and you?
B: Yes, and I have a question now, for you. Will you hear it?
M: I will listen. If my ears are any good, I will hear.
B: What might we say about that which chooses; the acting agent in all living things?
M: It is intelligence. Intelligence that has been placed into and environment where it can
be enticed, compelled, or called upon to exercise its‟ will.
B: What you speak of, I call consciousness or Buddha nature. It is the light within all
living things; it is the potential to become a Buddha.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 18
M: What do you say of the will power, or the capacity to act? And, can one strengthen or
increase their capacity to act?
B: The body is like a vehicle through which the Buddha nature may act in the world. Yet,
the body also cripples the will; much like a prison or shackles might inhibit physical
freedom. Yoga is the ancient art of yoking the spirit to God, Brahman, or ultimate light or
reality. This is one practice that increases the capacity to act. Thus, strengthening the
body can lend itself to strengthening the mind. But I must caution; some strengthen the
body for the body‟s sake, this is not wise. One should strengthen the body for the sake of
the mind.
M: Does a person‟s intention matter if the outcome is the same? Why does it matter, the
reason a person strengthens their body? Do they not benefit from a stronger body, even if
accomplished for the body‟s sake?
B: If I were to write my lover a tender letter as to obtain an intimate benefit from her; is
this different than to write the same letter with only the intention that she feel loved and
appreciated?
M: If you were to write a letter to a lover then you would forfeit your monkness, not a
good idea… Yes, it is different. The woman may soon discover your wicked ploy. Even
if she does not, by your own intention, you become either more selfless or selfish.
B: That is right. Likewise, to strengthen the body for the body‟s sake will yield certain
outcomes. One might attain to a more attractive body, but with increased ego or sense of
self, thus increasing their ignorance. Ironically, some claim to practice the art of yoga, but
they are accomplishing quite the opposite goal. They increase physical capacities and
appearances while increasing their ego or sense of self; they do not yoke their spirit to
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 19
god or light, rather they distance themselves from truth and enlightenment. Others
understand that their true self is their consciousness, that the body houses their mind or
spirit, and that the body is a vehicle through which they act out the experience of life.
These are more likely to exercise the body for the sake of the mind. These are they who
increase their power of will, who strengthen their capacities to act. They have greater
capacity for attaining to enlightenment.
For years, eternities, and the singularity of a timeless moment, the friends spoke and their
appreciation and respect for each other never ceased to increase. The Buddhist did not feel
bothered that his friend would forever call himself a Mormon, and the Mormon honored and
praised his friend for his selfless choice to serve all living creatures. Religion or differences in
worldview did not prevent the eternal growth of this friendship. If you are interested, I just
remembered an earlier conversation that they had. This was back when they had first met –
millions of years ago, feel free to listen:
M: Have you heard people speaking of moral theories?
B: Yes
M: How might you define a moral theory?
B: A model or framework designed for the purpose of conceptualizing how and why
humans may or may not act rightly.
M: What does it mean to act rightly?
B: To act for the benefit of all sentient beings.
M: Would you say that religions have moral theories that dictate appropriate behavior
and actions? Does Buddhism have a moral theory?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 20
B: All religions, if they are to be considered valuable to the world, suggest to their
followers to lead a selfless life. Buddhism teaches that one should negate their personal
desires and notions of self. Buddhism teaches one to act in a way as to benefit all sentient
life.
M: What do you think of the philosophical constructs of moral theories? For example:
Relativism, Divine Command Theory, Intuitionism, etc.
B: These are theories which man has made as an attempt to explain the various ways that
humans act out morally. These theories no better represent morality than do theories of
exercise represent exercise. The theories become the languages that are used to describe
the phenomenon.
M: Does the study of moral theory help one to be moral?
B: Does the study of religion help one to be more religious? Does the study of exercise
help one to exercise?
M: Instinctively, I want to say yes. However, I have seen Doctors of Medicine who are
fat and lazy; psychiatrists with more mental problems than their patients; and many other
ironies that lead me to believe that the study of something does not yield the fruition of
the relevant content.
B: I have seen this as well.
M: What is interesting, however, is that there is another way to talk about the same
scenarios, without the irony. For example, when we use the word to describe someone
and that word implies the act; healers heal, runners run, doers do, learners learn, etc. It
seems that it is in the doing that the person becomes or reaches the goal. And if this is so,
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 21
is there any purpose in studying? Why study anything about moral principles when you
can just get up and live a moral life?
B: One who studies faithfully may discover a question. One who discovers a question
might find and answer. An answer may provide wisdom. Wisdom yields truth and light.
Truth and light teach compassion. Compassion compels one to live rightly. One who
lives rightly will study and ask questions.
M: Remember that whole Buddhist concept of Samsara, that never ending cycle where
nothing is new? That sounds like the same thing as what you just said. . .
B: . . .
M: A little help here?
B: . . .
M: Ok, fine. I am able to imagine that some need to study in order to compel them toward
a deeper level of understanding which may yield a more compassionate lifestyle. But
don‟t you think that there is a point when studying can become a hindrance or it is too
excessive?
B: To study is to hinder.
M: I‟ve heard how Buddhists enjoy contradiction, and now I know it‟s true. Forgive me
though if I am starting to think your contractions are an excuse to not answer my
question. A simple “I don‟t know” would seem more appropriate.
B: Are you ignorant?
M: Pardon?
B: Do you comprehend all things, or are you ignorant to the true nature of reality?
M: Between those options, I choose ignorance.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 22
B: Then you are wise. Studying is hindering just as ignorance is hindering. Therefore, let
your ignorance be hindered by your studying.
M: Would you say that studying disrupts ignorance?
B: If it is done well.
M: What about an enlightened person, do they study?
B: The enlightened mind sees without eyes and hears without ears. The enlightened has
only to ask and the answer is given.
M: Sounds like, “ask and ye shall receive.” Jesus must have only been speaking to the
enlightened, if He could make that kind of promise.
B: It is only the enlightened who hear what is being said.
M: How would I know if I were enlightened?
B: You would not be asking me that question.
M: But the enlightened still ask questions, as you said.
B: I also said they are given the answer. And the answer comes before the question is
asked.
M: My head hurts. And I feel stumped.
B: That is a good place to be.
M: Why is that?
B: The emptiness where unanswered questions dwell is the space where reality is beheld.
If you are in that space, your spiritual eyes are opened. The man who will remain in
ignorance is afraid of that space. He will not enter in. The ignorant man will only ask
questions of which he believes the answers will soon come. Or, he pretends to have the
answer so he does not have to face the emptiness. In either case, he is afraid or a liar.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 23
M: I feel like I live in that space of unanswered questions.
B: What a place from where to begin a journey. Your questions will take you to the
insight of emptiness.
M: Hmm. . . .
B: Om. . . .
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 24
Chapter 1 – Mormonism
Just as is difficult to explain any particular worldview with accuracy, Mormonism will be
challenging to introduce. I will briefly discuss some basic historical context for the beginnings of
the faith, suggestions as to contemporary culture and behavior, and a few basic elements of the
“Plan of Salvation” (the central worldview of Mormonism).
Mormonism is a part of restorationism Christianity. Mormons believe that their church
was not a correction of any established organization. Rather, their church was restored to the
correct ecclesiastical system that was established anciently. The idea is that Adam and Eve were
introduced to the covenants, doctrines, principles, and ordinances of salvation and exaltation; we
will refer to this as the gospel. Through human agency, the gospel is either kept or lost. When it
is lost, God withdraws His prophets and authority, or his priesthood, which Mormons believe is
the power and authority to administer the gospel. When this type of withdrawal of priesthood
occurs, Mormons call these periods of time a general apostasy. It was during a time of general
apostasy that Mormonism begins; thus the proper name of the church, The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Latter-day” is a reference that the same gospel that was had
anciently has been restored, but in the final days before the return of Jesus Christ. Latter-day is
also a referent to the “last days.”
As Mormon missionaries will tell you, in the year 1820 the story of Mormonism begins.
Joseph Smith was only fourteen years old; however, he is a very sober child with an unusually
strong hunger for truth. Joseph came from a family heritage of strong spiritual and religious
convictions, although Joseph‟s father was not affiliated with any denomination. Josephs‟ father
and grandfather both claim to have had visions and dreams that from their seed a prophet would
arise. Joseph was concerned about which denomination to join and asked God for some answers.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 25
Joseph was visited by God and Jesus; he was told that no ecclesiastical system was free of
corruption, based on their creeds and their lip-service to God while denying the power of God.
Joseph was continually visited and instructed by God, Jesus, angels, ancient patriarchs of the
priesthood, etc. Ultimately, Joseph was called and given authority to be the prophet of the
restoration; that is, Joseph brought about new scripture, correctly interpreted old scripture, and
fulfilled the will of God on the earth. He was also given proper authority to administer the
ordinances and covenants that were made anciently.
With priesthood properly restored, Mormons believe that they are led by prophets,
apostles, and other authorized persons. The ecclesiastical structure reflects that of the New
Testament organization that is explained by Luke, Paul and others of 1st century Christianity.
Mormons represent just over two percent of one percent of the world‟s population.
Mormon culture has certain trappings that make it unique. First, language and conversations
between Mormons contain things like, “eternal progression,” mission stories that often involve
unfriendly dogs, prayers that often include “please bless us to return home in safety,”
terminology that is specific to Mormon concepts of salvation, and cultural myths/jokes such as,
“the more you knock doors in the rain, the better looking your marriage partner will become.”
Mormon homes are often decorated with images that represent Mormon traditions. You
might see pictures of the temple where the couple was married, homemade crafts that might
include a scripture or spiritually encouraging quote engraved upon it, and many objects that
promote family centeredness or explicitly say something like “family is forever.” Also, you will
notice that Mormons try to maintain a neat and orderly appearance in all aspects of their lives.
Consequently, Mormons dress neatly and modestly, they stay well groomed and professional
looking, and they often feel motivated to keep a clean and inviting environment in their homes.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 26
However, just like in Buddhism – which will be discussed next – Mormonism may be
different in some respects in different parts of the world. For example, you might not hear a
Mormon pray for protection to get home in safety, when they live on a small island and their
place of residence is forty two feet from their place of worship. Just as culture and language
influence the interpretation of human behavior in all parts of the world, Mormonism is colored
by the environment through which it is observed. However, a centralized authority yields a
general consistency in belief, doctrines, practices, and principles. I will conclude this section on
Mormonism with a limited treatment of the Plan of Salvation, which is a consistent concept from
which almost all Mormons frame their conception of reality and the purpose for their lives.
The Plan of Salvation outlines God‟s plans and purposes for all living things. It explores
the infinite design of the cosmos, explains why there is opposition in all things (including evil in
the world), and suggests a fundamental perspective (often called an “eternal perspective”) that
one should adopt in order to properly “work out” their own salvation and to see things as God
sees them.
Here, we will expand on just four concepts of the Plan of Salvation; larger and better
treatments can be found elsewhere. The four concepts we will visit here are: the pre-mortal state
of existence; the Adam and Eve narrative; post-mortal existence in a spirit world; and the
culmination of the plan of salvation which includes resurrection, judgment, and eternal life.
Pre-existence
The principle of pre-mortal existence or pre-earth life is understood as the condition of
our existence before the world was created (for doctrinal references, see appendix 1). Because of
the teaching of pre-earth life, Mormons conceptualize that personality is of an ancient or eternal
nature; the bodies of one‟s offspring might very well house spirits that are more ancient and wise
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 27
than the parents. For this reason, children are quite sacred. Abortions are frowned upon, in part,
because they deprive a primordial spirit from entering mortality.
Mormons might look at a great actor among humanity, like Mohandas Gandhi, and infer
that Gandhi was a great and noble spirit of compassion and justice before he ever came to earth.
However, not all people choose to remain as faithful on earth as they were in the presence of
God. This also means that some people who were somewhat ambiguous in their faithfulness to
God while in His presence, at least, have the potential to become great disciples while on earth.
One unfortunate consequence of this idea is that some Mormons have rationalized that certain
races or groups of people suffer more on Earth because they were not so faithful while with God.
Other Mormons might take the opposite position, that those who are “called” to suffer much in
this life may actually be stronger in spirit, and thus by suffering they are being prepared to do
great things for others. The fact that such discrepancies exist, is often used as support for the
argument that prophetic and centralized authority is a necessity to maintain purity in the gospel.
Adam and Eve Narrative
With the Mormon concept of pre-earth life in the backdrop, Mormons believe that mortal
life needed to have the necessary oppositions that would provide opportunity for growth. The
Adam and Eve story is told as the essential process of bringing opposition into the world. Some
forms of Christianity accuse mother Eve of a great evil when she partook of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil. Mormons believe in a fortunate fall and respect Eve for her wisdom
and understanding of God‟s eternal plan. We might infer that God and Eve “out played” the
devil; they each had confidence that the pains of a mortal state would be proving and beneficial
to humanity. While the devil was attempting to disrupt God‟s plan in the Garden of Eden, he
actually provided an opportunity to bring evil, or opposition into the world. Mormons understand
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 28
that the Devil or evil is allowed on the earth, because all people must choose to overcome it if
they desire eternal life. This, in part, is why Mormons are hardly troubled by the philosophical
“problem of evil”; because, rather than evil being a problem for God‟s existence, it is a natural
form of opposition which makes growth a possibility.
Mormons say that God knew that Adam and Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit. In
fact, God even asserts “for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:
17). Mormons do not hold any malice against Eve‟s decision. The highest blessings, powers, and
promises are presented to persons inside Mormon temples. To receive these, men are required to
prove themselves by obtaining the priesthood and maintaining worthiness. Likewise, women are
to maintain the same standard of worthiness.
Mormons look at Adam and Eve with admiration and gratitude for pioneering the way to
a necessary mortal experience. Mistakes are necessary for progress, but God has already
prepared a way for our recovery and growth through Jesus Christ who was prepared or chosen
“before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1: 4). Also, the Adam and Eve narrative, as
taught in Mormonism, allows Mormons to infer that God did not make a mistake in the garden.
Instead, everything works toward the fulfilling of God‟s purposes. This also helps Mormons to
have confidence when considering fears, evil, or the devil; because these things are allowed to
exist even though God has power over them. The devil sometimes seems like just another
resource which God can manipulate or direct to produce virtuous results, or in the case of
mortality, to help His children learn and grow.
Spirit world
Mormonism teaches that there is no end to learning and growth. The death of the body is
just a step in the eternal process of progression. Mormons believe there is a place that most
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 29
people go after they die, but before they are resurrected to be received into a kingdom of glory.
This space between is called the spirit world. Here, personalities are able to continue to learn,
grow, and accept the saving principles of salvation. Mormons even perform saving ordinances
(sacred rituals necessary for salvation and exaltation; ex., baptism) for those who have died and
cannot do the ordinances themselves. This effort is sometimes called work for the dead.
Doing work for the dead is a significant part of Mormon culture and behavior. Couples
and individuals go often to temples in order to serve their ancestors through this work. A high or
important ordinance performed there is the “sealing” of husband and wife together for all time
and eternity. Therefore, in this life and the next, the central purpose of the Gospel of Christ is to
help, as many as will, enjoy an eternal family where husbands, wives, and children are all sealed
to each other and to God.
Resurrection, Judgment, and Kingdom of Glory
Finally, Mormons do not dichotomize the eternal state of the soul as being sent to either
heaven or hell. In fact there is a place prepared for each person, relevant to their desires and
choices. Mormons find justification, in the Bible, where Paul speaks of kingdoms like the sun,
moon, and stars (1 Corinthians 15: 40-41). Elsewhere, Paul speaks of a “third heaven” (2
Corinthians 12: 2). Mormons teach that God presides over the highest kingdom, Jesus over the
next, and the Holy Ghost over the lowest of the three. Mormons teach that even the lowest
kingdom of glory is greater than any experience to be had on earth. Mormons teach that we
practically judge ourselves based on how we choose to live. Judgment will be perfectly just.
Every soul will go exactly where their desires have led them.
It is taught that God‟s greatest desire for his children is that they receive all that He has
and is. For that reason, God makes possible that everyone can become like God. Also, God is
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 30
married to Goddess(es). Men may become like Heavenly Father, while women may become like
“Heavenly Mother.” Mormons infer that Heavenly Father implies Heavenly Mother. This is why
there is such an emphasis on sealing couples together; it is part of “becoming like God.”
As one can imagine, these concepts of the plan of salvation have a significant impact on
the worldview and behavior of Mormons. They see themselves as part of a grand eternal family.
Not only do they feel an eternal relationship to Father in Heaven, but they understand themselves
to have a Mother in heaven. Furthermore, they literally see themselves as children of these
heavenly parents as well as belonging to an even larger “extended” family. This is a very grand
and complex worldview. In a way this kind of worldview, that is so all encompassing, resembles
some of eastern thought where all things are part of one great whole, or that all truth is
circumscribed into an ultimate completeness.
Mormon doctrine suggests that truth can be found in every worldview (similar to a Hindu
approach); however, Mormons have a centralized authority through prophets and apostles, which
is how doctrine or truth is established.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 31
Chapter 2 – Buddhism
A priest once came to the edge of a wide and tumultuous
river. He looked across and saw a monk on the other side.
The priest shouted, “How did you get to the other side!?”
The return came, “You are on the other side!”
– A Buddhist koan.
Buddhism and the Tibetan tradition
The story of Buddhism is in some respects more difficult to capture than the story of
Mormonism; partly because Buddhism does not have centralized authority. The historical
Buddha had no desire to organize a church, a sect, or a system through which his teachings could
be disseminated. He seems to have only wanted to share the insights that were given to him.
Although the Buddha worked miracles and made prophecies, he only did so out of the love or
compassion he had for those to whom he ministered or taught. I will introduce only a few
disciplines of Buddhist thought, as the purpose here is to have in mind a common idea of the
narratives and fundamental teachings that are meaningful in Buddhism, generally.
It is approximately the 6th century B.C.E. in which the story of Siddhartha Gautama
begins. His birth was reportedly auspicious, his upbringing paradoxical to his life journey, and
his teachings more curious and influential than his life narrative. We will call him the Buddha,
“the awakened one”, but it is interesting to note the many names by which he may be called.
Gautama is the family name from whence he came. His family were members of the Sakya clan,
which was a prominent and powerful clan of the warrior-caste who lived near the foothills of the
Himalayas (in the northern part of India). He was later called, Sakyamuni, which literally means,
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 32
“sage of the Sakya clan.” Siddhartha is also a name which came later; it means “one who has
achieved his goal” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 11).
Accounts vary on the details, yet it was prophesied – at the time of the Buddha‟s birth –
that he would become either a great warrior who might unite all of India, or he would follow the
path of the aesthetic (or samana) and become a great religious leader. It is said that the Buddha‟s
father, Suddhodana, wanted his son to fulfill the former, that is, to become a mighty political
leader. Suddhodana was a great king and, therefore, had the power and resources to create an
environment which he thought would lead his son away from a religious life. The Buddha was
thus raised with every pleasure and convenience imaginable. He was surrounded by healthy
servants (to not expose him to illness or death), beautiful women (to persuade him that a life of
power is a life of pleasure) and immaculate, grand palaces for every season of the year. The
Buddha also fell in love and married. His wife gave him a son, and the Buddha confesses that he
loved his family very much. Yet, he seemed to always have a curiosity about himself, a yearning
that would lead him down a religious path and a path to enlightenment.
On the Buddha‟s thirtieth birthday, he enjoyed a chariot ride that took him outside of the
palace to the countryside. This was beyond the area of “his home that was secured by his father
from anything upsetting” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 14). It is said that he saw – for the first time – what
were later called, “the Four Sights.” He saw an elderly person, a sick man, and a corpse, and a
spiritual practitioner. The realities of human suffering shocked him. He went home but found
that the images of suffering and death were still on his mind. He could no longer enjoy his
luxurious life. “Returning to the palace, Gautama fell into melancholy and could no longer find
any enjoyment in the pleasures of his princely life” (p. 15). He determined that he needed to
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 33
leave his father‟s palace. Siddhartha left his old life behind him to seek for a way to end these
sufferings.
Not taking his decision lightly (assuring that his family would be properly cared for), and
being fully committed to a spiritual journey, the Buddha set off to find the “truth.” He began by
looking for spiritual teachers to increase his understanding. His journey cannot be told
adequately here, but I will speak to few significant events.
First, upon leaving his home to begin his pilgrimage, he was tempted by Mara. Some
Buddhist traditions understand Mara to be an actual demonic force, while other traditions (such
as Mahayana) approach Mara as more of a psychological construct. Secondly, the Buddha
learned of and practiced with the various spiritual traditions of his culture (the Jains, Ajivakas,
Materialists, and Skeptics). Third, before his awakening (enlightenment), the Buddha wrestled
with Mara.
Under the Bodhi tree, just before the Buddha‟s awakening, Mara is said to have employed
all his armies and tactics as a last attempt to remove the Buddha from the path to enlightenment.
As Mara tried to cause the Buddha to doubt his worthiness for enlightenment, the Buddha
“touched the earth asking for its witness that he was indeed worthy to become the Buddha”
(Mitchell, 2002, p. 18). The earth testified with an earthquake and sent the earth goddess to
vanquish Mara and his armies; Mara and his armies fled. The Buddha then passed through four
stages of meditation and into enlightenment. As he meditated through the night, he saw all of his
past lives (during the first watch, or evening); then the lives and deaths of all, or the whole of
existence (second watch, or midnight); finally, “[d]uring the third watch (late night), he
destroyed all mental and emotional impurities, selfish desires, false views, and ignorance”
(Mitchell, 2002, p. 19).
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 34
The Buddha was reluctant to teach. He did not believe anyone would receive him.
However, Sahampatī Brahmā (considered as the most reverenced god of that era) plead with him
to teach the people, “Please teach the Dharma, there will be some who can become Awakened”
(Mitchell, 2002, p. 20). Out of compassion for the people, he designed what is called “the middle
way,” as a model for teaching others to attain enlightenment. His teachings include the concepts
of the four noble truths, the eightfold path, impermanence, dissatisfaction, no-self, the five
aggregates, dependent co-arising, nirvana, karma and rebirth. Since the time of Buddha,
Buddhism has divided and adapted into many forms (traditions and schools of thought) to fit the
context of whatever culture it has encountered.
Radmila Moacanin (2003), in his book, The essence of Jung’s psychology and Tibetan
Buddhism: Western and Eastern paths to the heart, reviews the history of Tibetan Buddhism,
and Buddhism generally. Hinayana, “lesser vehicle,” is a form of Buddhism that developed in
Burma, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. “Hinayana stresses strict moral regulations and adherence to
austere vows of conduct. The ultimate goal is attainment of one‟s own salvation. . . . [T]he ideal
human being, is called an „arhat.‟” (p. 6). An arhat is a champion over passions. The Mahayana
or, “greater vehicle,” developed in Northern India, Mongolia, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan, Nepal,
Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Korea, and Japan.
Mahayana continues where Hinayana leaves off; the ultimate goal for adherents
of Mahayana is to seek salvation not for their own sake but for the benefit of all
beings. And this goal is no less than the attainment of Buddhahood. . . . Mahayana
emphasizes intuitive wisdom to remove the veil of ignorance obscuring our pure
essence, the buddha nature dwelling in all of us and which only needs to be
uncovered. (p. 6)
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 35
As we understand what we are and what we are not, we see that we are not what we thought; we
see ourselves as the same essence as and intimately connected to the entire universe.
Moacanin (2003) also comments that Buddhism has taken many, often contradictory,
forms. But, the Buddha would be happy with this, for each person in every social context
experiences unique problems (pp. 4-5). In other words, we each need a personalized path. This
concept of a personalized path toward enlightenment is often captured with the term, upaya.
Upaya is the Mahayana Buddhist concept that refers to whatever it takes to help a person or
humanity, progress toward enlightenment. You may often hear the goal of enlightenment being
compared with crossing to the other side of a river. Consider the craft upon which you ride as
upaya.
Each school of Buddhism will naturally have a “upayanic” method for its practitioners,
but here, I only want to clarify a few terms that are generally understood and used in Buddhism.
Enlightenment is to see reality as it is. It is to wake up, to possess an awareness of all things, or
to see that there is neither one who possesses nor are there things to possess. It is compared often
with salvation, because of the peace it yields:
All the water and drink you‟ve consumed
Through beginningless time until now
Has failed to slake thirst or bring you contentment.
Drink therefore this stream
Of enlightenment mind, fortunate ones.
(Milarepa, as cited in Kunga-Rinpoche & Cutillo, 1995, p. V)
Enlightenment implies nirvana. Nirvana is a “blowing out” or the “extinguishment” of the fire of
desire, it is to experience freedom from our desires which bind us down and keep us ignorant.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 36
The Buddha compared this fire to words like passion, hatred, and infatuation (Mitchell, 2003, p.
45, 50). If we remain caught by our desires, or wrapped up in the craving to satisfy ourselves, we
are bound to suffer without end. Endless suffering is captured by the term samsara, which is to
be born and born again into a world of ignorance. The way to enlightenment is the way to put a
stop to the cycle of samsara. Samsara is ignorantly living, ignorantly living is suffering, and
suffering is caused by our desires. This leads us to the four noble truths and the eightfold path.
The four noble truths and the eightfold path are concepts that Siddhartha organized as
pedagogy for attempting to teach to others the insights that he gained under the Bodhi tree. The
four noble truths and the eightfold path:
 1st noble truth: Duhkha: Life implies suffering. Suffering in this context does not
necessarily mean physical pain, but can be understood as discontentment or displeasure.
 2nd noble truth: The cause of Duhkha. All suffering is caused by desires
 3rd noble truth: Cessation of suffering through nirvana. There is a way to end suffering, it
is by ending our desires.
 4th noble truth: The path or the way to end suffering. The path to nirvana and
enlightenment. This is called the eightfold path.
The eightfold path is divided into three pillars: wisdom, ethics, and meditation.
Wisdom pillar
1. Right understanding
2. Right thought
Ethics (or action) pillar
3. Right speech
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 37
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
Meditation pillar
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration
For Buddhists, one only comes to know the truth of the teaching through practice. Buddhism is a
very proactive religion, in that more emphasis is placed on living the religion as opposed to
studying it. As one of my professors of Buddhism, Kenneth R. White, so often says about
Buddhism, “Practice is the norm for verifying truth.”
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 38
Chapter 3 – similarities and differences in Mormonism and Buddhism
We must be careful to understand how culture and even personal interpretation color the
use and meaning of language. This is true to such a degree that sometimes it is the case that the
same word means something entirely different to different parties. For this reason, I can only
attempt to compare and contrast Mormonism and Buddhism in a language that is purely of my
own understanding. If I say that the Mormon concept of God and the Buddhist concept of
Ultimate Reality are two different things, then it is fair for someone else to see them as the same
thing. Furthermore, it is possible that we are both right. Context and perspective are hardly
valued when they ought to be; other times they are over emphasized while the truth eludes us.
While Buddhism tends to use illusive and poetic language to direct the mind toward
enlightenment, the Mormon epistemology calls for a more literal use of language.
Durwood Foster (1987), in his article “Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Current Sticking
Points,” summarizes the main ideas from an interfaith conference in Honolulu, where the
objective was to discuss similarities and differences in Christianity and Buddhism. Foster
compares nirvana to the goal of heaven, ultimate reality to God, and the concept of suffering to a
necessary good. He illuminates that Buddhists see Christ as a bodhisattva (Foster, 1987, p. 170).
Mormons can see Buddha as a type and shadow of Christ; and likewise view bodhisattvas as
Christ-like persons.
Christianity, generally, will view Jesus as someone to believe in and follow, but
Mormons also see themselves as able to become like Christ. Therefore, Buddhists can see
themselves becoming like the Buddha (a bodhisattva), and Mormons can see themselves as
becoming like Christ (a Christian, in the Mormon sense). Bodhisattvas are personalities that have
completely demolished the ego and consequently they live for the benefit of all living; they
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 39
compassionately, and with wisdom, help to remove suffering and ignorance in the world. A
genuine bodhisattva is quite similar to how Mormons view what a genuine Christian ought to be
like.
As Mormonism is a Christian religion (by biblical standards, but arguable by general
theological standards), I will sometimes use Christian in place of Mormon where there is no
considerable discrepancy. In all other cases, I will be sure to clarify where concepts are
exclusively Mormon and not a general “Christian” idea. I do this because many of the parallels
between Mormonism and Buddhism are also found in Christendom generally. I may likewise
refer to Hindi, Taoist, or other Eastern concepts in a like manner. I will similarly clarify as
needed.
There are many obvious differences between the worldviews of Mormonism and
Buddhism. Take reincarnation, for example. Although Buddhists do not typically concern
themselves with matters not having to do with the “here and now,” some Buddhist thought takes
quite literally the idea of reincarnation, while other lines of thinking might see it as a
metaphorical symbol for a life without change; eternally caught in the cycle of rebirth or never
ending consequences of our desires. Mormonism does not currently speak to an idea of
reincarnation. Rather, Mormon doctrine speaks of post, present, and pre earth life. A person is
only born once into a mortal state, excepting in the possible cases where mothers who have lost
babies or small children may have an opportunity to yet raise those children at a later time.
Another difference is the very concept of doctrine. Mormonism claims to preach the one
and only true doctrine, while Buddhism teaches that there are infinite possibilities that may
produce enlightenment. A person may become enlightened while cleaning toilets or while
meditating on the top of a high mountain. Mormonism exonerates the language of scripture and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 40
Buddhism feels that language can get in the way of truth. For this reason, Buddhism uses koans,
which are intentional contradictions or paradoxes that cause the mind to travel outside the realm
of grammatical and linguistic parameters. However, it is important to emphasize that
Mormonism places the Holy Spirit as an essential influence for understanding what is being read
or taught. In this way, some Mormons are justified to feel the same way about language as a
Buddhist might, that scripture and prophetic teachings are only useful insofar as they point us to
a more correct reality that can only be shown and seen through the sprit.
Mormons find salvation and deliverance in Jesus. Buddhists see that liberation comes
when you are awakened to the truth of reality, as it really is. Jesus claimed to not only have the
way to salvation, but to be the way to salvation. The Buddha did not make exalted claims about
himself; he only claimed to have awoken from a deep sleep and felt to share his wisdom with
those who would listen.
Buddhists try to improve their moral behavior by removing their desires for things of the
world (wealth, power, pleasure, and attachment to things or people). Mormons try to improve
their moral behavior by repenting of immoral action and establishing a faith and hope in the
power of atonement, that Jesus redeems the sinner from all their sins. The Buddhist believes that
the power to change comes from within; while Mormons believe the power to change comes
from Jesus Christ through the power of his atonement. Buddhism often appears to be a very
personal journey while Mormonism appears as a very social or collective cause. However, how
things appear hardly reflects the reality. Buddhism is also very concerned with community action
and service, and Mormonism is very concerned with the personal experiences and growth of
individuals. Selfless service and personal sacrifice are paramount in both religions.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 41
Buddhism does not often speak about or concern itself with the existence of god(s). It is a
central theme in Mormonism to see, become like, and dwell with God. Also, worship services
are different. Mormons have rituals and sacrament services, Buddhists meditate. Mormon
services are formalized with structure and leadership, while Buddhist mediation groups are
conducted by lay persons with no authoritative position; all are seen as equals. However,
opposite examples are had in both religions. For example, inside Mormon temples there is a
general feeling of equality where all persons dress the same and participate in the ordinances.
Likewise, there are cases in Buddhism where a local community is visited by a reverenced figure
– such as a traveling monk, the Dalai Lama, other lamas, etc. A local sangha, community of
Buddhist practitioners, will often submit to a particular practice, prayer list, or meditation style
as dictated by an agreed upon leader or source material.
There are some similarities that I find to be more obvious, and we will consider other
parallels in a later section of this article. Both worldviews have central figures from where a
teaching sprouted and was thus propagated. In addition, both have many teachers that have come
since, who are considered great figures of the faith, persons who have expounded the doctrine of
Christ or illuminated the teachings of Siddhartha. The fundamental teachings of how one ought
to conduct their lives are almost identical, from the sayings of Jesus and the Buddha (to be
compared further in section 6).
The coming together of heart and mind is both a value in Mormon and Buddhist teaching.
Compassion and wisdom are fundamental to the Buddhist experience; they are likewise valued in
the Mormon experience. A constant and vigilant effort to obtain truth is had in both religions and
both stress devotion, fasting, and meditation. From the Mormon prophet, David O. Mckay:
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 42
We pay too little attention to the value of meditation, a principle of devotion. In
our worship there are two elements: One is spiritual communion arising from our
own meditation; the other, instruction from others. . . . Of the two, the more
profitable introspectively is the meditation. Meditation is the language of the soul.
It is defined as „a form of private devotion, or spiritual exercise, consisting in
deep continued reflection on some religious theme.‟ Meditation is a form of
prayer. . . . [It] is one of the most secret, most sacred doors through which we pass
into the presence of the Lord. (McKay, 2003, p. 31-32)
Although in Mormonism prayer is emphasized more that meditation, this Mormon prophet says
that “meditation is the language of the soul.” Buddhists could not agree more.
Truth, awakening, and enlightenment all ring as meaningful to both worldviews.
Buddhists would say that all truth is part of one great whole, and Mormons would agree. The
Buddha is known as the awakened one, or one who awoke. The Book of Mormon encourages us
to awake, “O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of hell…”
(2 Nehpi 1: 13). Both views see that humankind is ignorant or asleep to the truth, to reality as it
actually is.
We will continue this dialogue of similarities in section 6, but now is the time to
introduce the language by which I suggest we go about doing so.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 43
Chapter 4 – Archetype and Jung’s psychology
An archetypal pattern of behavior is assumed to exist when a
social phenomenon is found to be characteristic of all human
communities regardless of culture, race, or historical epoch.
-Abramson (2007, p. 116)
In this chapter, I will define archetype as a language that is spoken in symbol. Archetype,
like music and art, can transcend many boundaries or limitations that the process of translation
can impose. For this reason, one must cultivate a refined skill in hearing and seeing to be able to
speak the language of archetype. This story is not written by one who has such refinement. I am
like a curious man who stumbled across an ancient ruin and is trying to describe it to his friends.
Therefore, my language is not perfect nor is my description adequate and sufficient. But just as
symbol points the seer toward a meaning, this story is meant to point the hearer to a primeval and
present reality. Talented linguists, archeologists, psychologists, philosophers, theologians, and
others will more carefully style the conversation that I am only introducing. For this section,
however, I am going to briefly introduce some of the history of archetype. We will visit ancient
Greece and consider some contemporary work on the subject and then we will primarily consider
the approach of Carl Gustav Jung. Jung‟s approach to archetype is the primary engine to my
work.
It is valuable to note that much of the language used to discuss archetype has been
developed anciently. Teske (1998) tells us that the platonic world of ideas or forms has been
described as the “archetypal world of Plato”, that the world of intelligences is the archetypal
world (p. 118). Plato imagined or perceived some kind of archetypal world from which our
world sprang, or, that the world of ideas and intelligence precedes the world of forms, our world
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 44
(p. 120). Seen objects mimic real forms. The things understood and observed in the world are
shadows of real things. Understanding archetype is difficult, just as it was for the men in Plato‟s
cave to understand what the shadows on the wall really represented. Most are not even aware
that the shadows are not the things. Let us consider archetypes as the concepts out of which
perceived things originate. As an example, consider the Mormon and Buddhist view of the mind.
Each suggests that the mind is not the brain. Rather, the brain is a physical form that either
mimics or might interact with the mind. We might say that thoughts do not originate in the brain,
even though we can observe synaptic activity which corresponds with what we call thinking.
Doherty (1960) also takes us to ancient Greece, where some of the earliest conversations
on archetype originated: “Some claim, naturally enough, that this historic union of mind and
archetype occurred first under the influence of Aristotle who in Physics and Metaphysics
employed the term paradeigma as synonym for the logos immanent in the artist‟s mind” (p.63).
Doherty tells us that the Platonic idea of education was, in part, rooted in archetype and that,
“Text on text could be cited to exemplify the role of the Ideas as archetype” (p. 60). Archetype
could be defined as original forms, such as the world in which we now live was an archetypal
image in the mind of God before it was created. However, Plato‟s thinking was a bit more unique
or peculiar, in that he saw God as not the original designer of physical properties or human form,
because they are archetypal. In other words, God is only aware of the forms as they are and may
thus create physical realities according to archetypal forms (p. 61).
Plato‟s conception of the created world “makes the Demiurge [God] sustain the ordered
world in its mode of existence, after its initial ordering by a positive act of the demiurgic will.
Thus without the constant providence of the Demiurge the visible cosmos would return to its
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 45
primeval state of ataxis, chaos” (Doherty, 1960, p. 62). And that man, insofar as he is just, might
be archetypal of God himself:
Thus in the Republic the legislator for a model of his constitution contemplates
justice in nature and in men who, insofar as they are just, are said to be „in the
divine image and the divine likeness.‟ While these models are extrinsic to the
legislator, the just men themselves become somewhat archetypal in their
participated embodiment of justice. (p. 62)
It feels reasonable to me that all of what is seen with our natural senses is not reality as it is.
Solid objects are not solid objects when we have looked closer. Size and reference are arbitrary
assignments which are useful to a degree. However, we can challenge these ideas with a thought
experiment about scale, such as Einstein‟s question of what might it be like to be a photon?
E=MC² challenges our assumptions behind the notions of time, space, and matter. The most that
we can say about our physical world is that it is some kind of sign or symbol into the nature of
reality, as it really is. Yet, we might also say that reality perceived is reality as it is (or the only
one we‟re capable of understanding). And it is our capacity to perceive that has yet to be
explained. Or, the ability to ask questions (an archetypal theme) lends us to perceptions beyond
algorithmic observations.
With an introduction to archetype, I would like to place this into context of the human
condition or psyche. I will now provide an outline of Jung‟s psychology/philosophy; because his
theoretical construct which includes archetype is where I am most strongly coming from. We
will discuss archetype in greater detail, but first a general synopsis of the collective unconscious,
archetype, and individuation.
Collective unconscious
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 46
In Memories, dreams, reflections (1961), Jung argues that compassion or sympathy
toward all people is built into human nature and originates from the collective unconscious. “The
collective unconscious is common to all; it is the foundation of what the ancients called the
„sympathy of all things‟” (p. 138). For Jung, the collective unconscious was a source of endless
psychic material, for it contains the entirety of what can yet be known.
Jung thought that Freud‟s view of the unconscious as filled with repressed
childhood experiences of parental relationships was far too narrow. Jung saw the
unconscious not just as garbage dump, but as a collective unconscious of the
human race containing far more material than Freud thought. (Kessler, 2008, p.
149)
The collective unconscious also houses creative energy and archetypes, which Kessler refers to
as “psychological version of instincts” (p. 149). Archetype is the instinct through which
archetypal symbols are generated; be they in the form of poetry, architecture, drawing, painting,
behavior, myth, rhetoric, etc. Archetypes are found in the collective unconscious, according to
Jung, and this realm of consciousness might even be an archetypal symbol in and of itself
(consider Plato‟s world of ideas, Mormon concepts of an underlying Spirit World, Buddhist
interpretation of emptiness, the unifying principle, esoteric ideas of connectedness, science
fiction illustrations of mentally intertwined species, David Bohm‟s and Einstein‟s dissertations
on energy, Indra‟s net, the light of Christ, Unified Field Theory in physic, intuitive awareness,
the idea of „one in all, all in one‟, etc.)
Archetypes
In Jung’s map of the soul: An introduction (1998), Stein records, “The origin of Jung‟s
notion of archetypes can be traced back in his written works to the period between 1909 and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 47
1912 when, while still collaborating with Freud, he was investigating mythology and writing
Psychology of the Unconscious” (p. 89). Earlier, Stein states, “the theory of archetypes is critical
to Jung‟s overall conception of the psyche. In fact, it is the foundation” (p. 85)
[Jung‟s psychology] rests on the assumption that occult phenomena [supernatural,
mystical, or magical beliefs, or practices] can and do influence the lives of
everyone. Jung believed that each of us is motivated not only by repressed
experiences but also by certain emotionally toned experiences inherited from our
ancestors. (Feist & Feist, 2006, p. 98)
These “occult phenomena” manifest symbolically in our world as archetypes. Stevens (1983),
one who was more interested in scientific approach, refers to Jung‟s archetypes as universally
present in all humans, he speaks of them as “psychic and behavioural forms” (p. 14). He claims
that archetype informs the physical reality and that we are born with them as a type a psychic
characteristic. Therefore, the role of personal experience is to develop what is already there:
to actualize the archetypal potential already present in the psychophysical
organism, to activate what is latent or dormant in the very substance of the
personality, to develop what is encoded in the genetic make-up of the individual,
in a manner similar to that by which a photographer, through the addition of
chemicals and the use of skill, brings out the image impregnated in a photographic
plate. (p. 16)
Some, who appreciate Jung‟s concept of archetype, see it as an answer to the complexity of
human personality, and that archetype is somehow embedded in the genome. Stevens (1983)
relays what his analyst once said, “Jung had reconciled the highest achievement of the human
spirit with the base materials out of which that spirit has evolved. Jung had built a bridge
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 48
between Darwin and God!” (p. 16). I do not agree that archetype can be explained in such a way
as this, but I offer this last perspective nevertheless.
Jung‟s psychology lends itself to the affirmative study of religion, so it was not surprising
that Jung was discussed in my latest religious studies class. But Jung, like William James, is
interested in making sense of the personal human experience. He did not mean to establish a
universal theory. In fact, said he, “Theories in psychology are the very devil” (Spoto, 1989, p. 1).
Jung felt that each human animal was too unique and complex for modern science and
psychology to grasp. “For Jung, while both Freud‟s and Adler‟s theories were „true,‟ given their
respective assumptions, either one or both together were not true enough to the complexity of the
psyche as Jung knew and experienced it” (Spoto, p. 5). In other words, even “true” theories do
not fully capture the subject matter which they investigate.
Jung believed that archetypal patterns could be infinite in their manifestations. This is
important to our discussion, because it allows for observers of human phenomena to seek
patterns and connections across cultures and religions. These patterns can be deeply powerful
concepts or material from which we may build bridges across differing worldviews.
While we are speaking of connections, it is interesting to relate archetype to Max
Weber‟s ideal type. Spoto (1989) lends us this:
In Jungian psychology, archetypes are transhistorical or universal psychic
tendencies which are not representable in and of themselves [emphasis added],
but which are manifested in outer behaviors, symbolic forms, patterns, or images.
There is no telling how many archetypes exist, but they all share characteristics
[emphasis added] that are best thought of as primordial and collective in nature.
(p. 18)
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 49
With Weber‟s ideal types, we are given a symbolic way of talking about abstract concepts that
do not actually exist in reality. Likewise, archetype is a way of talking about abstract concepts of
the human experience, psyche, and nature which do exist.
I also find it useful to relate archetype to Rudolf Otto‟s numinous. Speaking of what a
doctor must understand about his neurotic patients, Jung says that an analyst must understand the
depths and value of mythic elements of the human experience. “A doctor who does not know of
the numinosity [emphasis added] of the archetypes will hardly know what to do with the negative
effects that stem from them. He will tend to over- or underestimate it, since he possesses only an
intellectual point of view but no empirical criterion” (Jung, 1961, pp. 144-45). In a similar way,
might we say that an experience with the archetype is different than an “intellectual” observation
that it exists?
Jung seems to suggest to us that the so-called intellectuals will often not understand basic
human experiences. Some aspects of human phenomena can only be grasped by direct contact
with the numinous or with the archetype. Archetypal language lends itself to a kind of
architecture for constructing our perception of reality into a more complete vision. Symbols,
connections, types and shadows, dependent co-arising, universality, eternal truths; these are
spoken of in great depth via the language of archetype.
Jung cut into the depths of unconsciousness. As Jung exposed himself to worldviews
from all over the world, he began to notice archetypal themes that develop (even in cultures that
are isolated from one another). Jung hypothesized that archetypal themes, which are deeply
embedded in religious and culture forms, stem from this collective unconscious; and all people
have access to this (independent of time and space), through their dreams. It is, in part, from this
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 50
source that religions emerge; art work and music manifest; and deeply held values of morality
and humanity find their roots.
Let us grapple with one final concept from Jung‟s psychology, the process of
individuation. Here, Jung encourages people to find wholeness through an awareness and
integration of their entire personhood.
Individuation
Jung saw a human potential for becoming whole, a process he called individuation. To
become whole, one must be aware of and willing to integrate all aspects of the self. This includes
the anima/animus (opposing gender within the psyche), the shadow, and all other conscious and
unconscious facets of a person. A kind of harmony or balance is necessary for the process of
individuation. For example, a man may not be very healthy if he is overly masculine and always
masking himself with a macho-man persona. For this man, Jung would suggest he integrate his
Anima (female aspect within the male). For example, the man might try nurturing a baby, crying
during a movie, or showing compassion more often. This integrating of all the aspects of our
personhood is what Jung calls individuation. How does one integrate all aspects of their
self? What is a self? M. L. Von Franz (Jung, 1964) in, Man and his symbols, addresses the
abstract concept of self through tribal notions of the “inner man” or “the great man”; in ancient
Greek culture, the term “daimon”; for the Egyptians, “Ba-soul”; and for the Romans, the
“genius.” Franz prefers to discuss these ancient concepts of the self, “because they are
uncontaminated by our civilized ideas and still have natural insight into the essence of what Jung
calls the Self” (p. 162). This is both Mormon and Buddhist. Mormonism references this “self” as
an intelligence, or acting agent within the spirit of man (D&C, section 93). Buddhism references
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 51
this “self” as the essence which is pure consciousness. As discussed earlier, the brain is not the
mind.
So, how does one access the content of their self and begin to integrate its aspects? Jung
observed that the ancients often placed more value into the content of their dreams than we do
today. Jung found that dreams follow a pattern, “the process of individuation” (Jung, 1964, p.
159). Jung calls individuation, “psychic growth” (p. 161), and explains that the Self can only be
comprehended through dreams. “The Self develops in ratio to how much the ego is willing to
pay attention to the deep content offered by the Self” (p. 163).
What holds us back from doing this? Perhaps, we too often look outside ourselves and
assess our progress or success in comparison to others. An ancient Chinese sage relates a story
about a tree whose wood was never valuable to carpenters. One night a carpenter is visited by a
tree that he cursed the day before (upset because its wood was of no value). The tree teaches the
carpenter that because its wood is not valuable, the tree lives a longer life. Von Franz (Jung,
1964) comments that the carpenter learns this lesson; “He saw that simply to fulfill one‟s destiny
is the greatest human achievement, and that our utilitarian notions have to give way in the face of
the demands of our unconscious psyche” (p. 165). In other words, our value is not based on how
we compare to, or how useful we are in reference to the outside world, but our value is
comprised of something entirely different. Perhaps what matters is the extent to which we have
become whole.
Not only must we give attention to the content of our dreams, to achieve individuation,
but we must become aware of the various aspects of the self. These other aspects can be talked
about as archetypal. There are five main aspects, from the outermost (conscious) to the innermost
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 52
(unconscious): the Persona, the Ego, the Shadow, the Anima/Animus, and the Self. Jung warns us
that his ideas are more like guidelines, so do not take this approach as objectively definitive:
Every individual is an exception to the rule. Hence one can never give a
description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one
individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of
others. Conformity is one side of man, uniqueness is the other. (Jung as cited in
Spoto, 1989, p. 165)
Although every person is unique, and the process of individuation must be tailor-made for each
individual, Jung saw that children represent a clearer vision of wholeness – compared with
adults. As Jung noted “a characteristic of childhood is that, thanks for its naiveté and
unconsciousness, it sketches a more complete pictures of the self, of the whole man in his pure
individuality, than adulthood” (Jung, 1961, p. 244).
An important aspect of individuation, the process in which the ego develops, is explained
by Kessler (2008). The three stages of development are: dependency, autonomy (freedom), and
integration. “Each of these stages corresponds to levels of religious experience and the
mythological expression of religious ideas” (p. 150). Dependency corresponds to the archetype
of the great mother. Autonomy corresponds to the struggle toward independence; seen in the
hero archetype (struggle, conflict, suffering, sacrifice, and reward). The latter half of life, if
development is normal, will be dominated with religious symbol. “Spiritual paths to inner peace
and harmony emerge. Religious experiences of the harmony of all opposites, mystical unions,
and mystical marriages, speak with ever greater intensity and appeal as we grow older and enter
our final years” (Kessler, 2008, p. 150). Jung saw that:
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 53
gods, goddesses, saviors, spiritual teachers, and other spiritual beings are
frequently projections of the self-archetype. . . . once projected they can offer
advice and guidance to us as we work through our anxieties about the end of our
lives. . . . Gods are easier to deal with “out there” than “in here”. In some cases
divinity is understood as a higher spiritual self within everyone. (Kessler, 2008, p.
150)
Jung is not saying that god(s) or spiritual beings exist only as psychological constructs, but only
frequently. Furthermore, Jung places high value on the reality of psychic content. What is
experienced within is just as important, if not more important, than what happens in the world
around us or “outside” of us. Again, Jung hopes to see people integrate themselves into
wholeness. To do this, one cannot ignore any content that is delivered to the mind. Even “bad” or
“evil” content must first be considered before it is discarded.
Having at least surveyed some of Jung‟s approach to psychology, let us take a deeper
look at archetype; especially as we begin to consider the application of archetype to the
connections in Mormonism and Buddhism.
Archetype and Religion, what is the relation?
An essay by Vasavada (1968) will be particularly helpful to us. This is so, because I am
necessarily a Westerner, owing to my cultural heritage. Vasavada is an Easterner who has taken
the same approach to Jung and religion as I now do. It is a strange thing when a man has
happened upon an insight which he desires to share with the world, and then discovers that he is
hardly the first person who has considered what he thought was a most unique idea. Yet, how
perfectly thematic to a discussion on archetype, that my Western interpretation of psychology
and religion is also had among persons of the East. Forgive me as I quote at length from my
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 54
companion in spirit, but I want to be true to his words – for indeed an excess of my interpretation
is no friend to enlightenment.
Vasavada studied with and was a friend to Jung. On the subject of archetype and the image of
God that is in man, Jung said:
the religious-minded man is free to accept whatever metaphysical explanations he
pleases about the origin of these images; not so the intellect, which must keep
strictly to the principles of scientific interpretation and avoid trespassing beyond
the bounds of what can be known. . . . The scientist is a scrupulous worker; he
cannot take heaven by storm. Should he allow himself to be seduced into such an
extravagance he would be sawing off the branch on which he sits. (as cited in
Vasavada, 1968, p. 137)
Jung felt that the West had perversely gotten away from religion and spirituality. A key influence
in this tragedy was that man in the West had forsaken the language of spirit for a language of
science. Jung, however, was among the most brilliant and knowledgeable persons on the
scientific concepts of his day; Jung was thus able to speak their language:
Jung was obliged to talk to the scientists in their own language. This was the only
way through which man in the West could be made to experiment with his depth
and know his origin. It was the only way through which Jung could dispel the
mystery with which religion and religious experience had been surrounded for
ages and show that man‟s soul has a religious function within it. It is an empirical
fact and can be experienced; it is not opposed to science in the true sense of the
term. . .
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 55
Jung could not, it seems, express himself openly about this integral experience in
a richer way only because then he would not have been understood and the
destiny of his work would have remained unfulfilled; he would have been labelled
as another religious fanatic. . . . His main task throughout his life had been to lead
man to the psychic realm of archetypes and the experience of them. He left them
alone afterwards, to make of this experience what they liked.
In spite of being a deeply religious man, surcharged all over, and suffused with
the richness of experience, he donned the robe of a psychologist and a doctor. He
would not have done this had he been in the East. To people who have grown
highly intellectual and for whom religion is a fixed dogma away from one‟s inner
life, confrontation with the irrational was the surest way to open their eyes. In
order to keep company with the scientist and man in the West, he went all the way
with the scientific procedure and showed how these experiences could be
understood scientifically. (Vasavada, 1968, p. 141-42)
Jung surely is criticized for his irrationality. On the knowledge of God and of truth, Jung said
that, “[i]f he can formulate it more or less, then he can more easily integrate it with
consciousness, talk about it more reasonably and explain its meaning a bit more rationally. But
he does not possess it more or in a more perfect way than the man who cannot formulate the
„possession‟” (As cited in Vasavada, 1968, p. 138). I hope to encourage a new way of seeing
things as they really are, and this next quote does well to illustrate this point.
In the light of the present state of religion which does not inspire living faith in
man, where God and the kingdom of heaven is either understood to be outside
oneself or among us (not within us), Jung very correctly shows that his
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 56
psychology opens a way through which one can experience God with himself and
that the soul of man contains within himself „. . . the equivalents of everything
that has been formulated in dogma and a good deal more‟. Thus taking issue with
dogmatic religion and the Church, he shows how his psychology is an art of
seeing the truth. „It is high time we realized that it is pointless to praise the light
and preach it if nobody can see it. It is much more needful to teach people the art
of seeing. . . . In order to facilitate this inner vision we must clear the way for the
faculty of seeing.‟ (p. 137)
Michael Fordham (2010) also observed that the religious perspective must be brought into the
world of psychology, to understand the human being. He speaks of the “fire in the soul” that all
analysts will come across (p. 622), a sort of religious spirit. The religious spirit is archetypal in
human beings, it says something about the reality that exists under the mirage of the limited
perceptions of the physical eye.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 57
Chapter 5 – Applying Archetype
The archetypes governing the collective unconscious
influence the appearance of characteristic collective
behavior in a given community. This, among other things,
is manifested in the “national character,” meaning, in
particular, dominating traits that are easily recognizable
by people outside the group
Weglowska-Rzepa et al. (2008, p. 60)
Our rapidly changing world
We live in a time where worldviews are coming into contact with each other like never
before. Jung‟s approach to comprehending the human psyche allowed him to have a more
generous, open, and favorable attitude toward religion. Perhaps by comedic satire, Jung said, “It
is a fact, which is constantly and overwhelmingly apparent in my practical work, that people are
virtually incapable of understanding any point of view other than their own” (as cited in Spoto,
1989, p. 55). Elsewhere, Jung offers why the West struggles with Eastern paradigms:
[T]he West loves clarity and unambiguity; consequently, one philosopher clings
to the position “God is,” while another clings equally fervently to the negation
“God is not.” What would these hostile brethren make of an assertion like the
following: „Recognizing the voidness of thine own intellect to the Buddhahood,
and knowing it at the same time to be thine own consciousness, thou shalt abide in
the state of the divine mind of the Buddha.‟ Such an assertion is, I fear, as
unwelcome to our Western philosophy as it is to our theology. (Jung, 1958, p.
285)
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 58
Jung‟s life pursuit was to understand the psyche. Given that his framework for this was the
psychoanalytical approach, he was very concerned with qualities and aspects of consciousness.
This is perhaps one reason Jung could so easily appreciate Eastern modes of thinking; Eastern
philosophers have, from ancient date, considered the nature of consciousness. For example, the
Tibetan book of the dead (TBD) deals with levels of consciousness. In fact, as Jung explains, the
TBD belongs well in Mahayana generally, because it deals so thoroughly with the human psyche
(Jung, 1958, p. 284). Jung said, “The psyche is a whole in which everything is connected with
everything else” (as cited in Spoto, 1989, p. 109). This concept of the psyche corresponds well
with the Buddhist concept of one reality, or that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Yet, as
we have mentioned earlier, even Western culture is decorated with images and themes of unity
and connectedness.
In the introduction to a translation of the Tibetan book of the dead, Jung wrote, “I am sure
that all who read this book with open eyes, and who allow it to impress itself upon them without
prejudice, will reap a rich reward” (Jung, 1958, p. 284). Such is the rhetoric in Mormonism,
“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal
Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart,
with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of
the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Book
of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4-5).
If, in your mind, you are able to understand and see how two or more worldviews or
religions are speaking of the same fundamental reality or truth, you are able to learn the language
of archetype. The language of archetype is for those with eyes to see and ears to hear; it allows
for sharing across boundaries that are not so easily crossed. This is why archetype matters,
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 59
because our world seems to be dividing quickly into many worlds that are safely secure behind
the veil of technological development and cosmopolitan fantasies. In other words, it seems that
we are nestling into false senses of comfort, convenience and security as never known before in
the history of the human race. Even if our world and lives are under no particular threat,
archetype does provide an interesting model for improving understanding and dialogue between
worldviews.
Using archetype to cut through the veil of culture
In 1981, Weglowska-Rzepa and colleagues were mindful that the world was moving
toward globalization and that there were contentions over ideological and economic issues. In
Poland and South Korea, they looked for the influence of various archetypes on informing
respective cultural manifestations. Controlling for similarities in each country‟s histories, they
found that there was a common thread in how people from each nation received and reacted to
archetypal content (p. 69). Considering their task, they asked:
What do the East and West or South Korea and Poland have in common?
Seemingly, there are more differences than similarities between them. Still,
asking such a question allows us to go beyond schematic thinking and focusing
exclusively within the circle of our own culture. Asking this question also enables
us to find connections between the consciousness and unconsciousness, between
the rational and irrational aspects of human life. (p. 61)
It is too often the case that we judge instead of understand. It is commonplace to dichotomize
ourselves in relation to anything or everything else. In response, the Buddhist and Christian
message is to lose the self, become one, and wake up to the truth. This is not easily done, but the
archetypal approach begs for a paradigm that makes these religious or spiritual goals a more
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 60
attainable possibility. The archetypal approach shows that such goals are agreed upon, generally.
If these premises are accepted one can quite easily admit that archetypal language can likewise
be useful for peace and interfaith dialogue.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 61
Chapter 6 – Archetypal analysis of Mormonism and Buddhism
What would an archetypal analysis of Mormonism and Buddhism look like? What would come of
it? As it just so happens, a Mormon and a Buddhist once discussed this very idea. I have part of
a transcript from their exchange:
M: What do you think would happen if I would have been born in the East and raised as a
Buddhist, and you were born in the West and raised as a Mormon or a Christian?
B: It has probably happened.
M: Let me try again. If at the very moment you and I were born (talking about this life,
right now) our souls were switched. Do you think that I would have still become a
Christian and you become a Buddhist?
B: I haven‟t ever met a child that is as inquisitive as you. I know of no one who
constantly thinks and wonders about so many strange and peculiar things.
M: . . .
B: How do you hope that I answer your question?
M: I don‟t know, I‟m just wondering to what extent the world around us colors the way
that we interpret the truth. For example, I cannot conceive of any other truth than that
which I have come to know and love. I am certain that what I believe is true. In fact, I
know that what I know is what I know.
B: So, you wonder how it is that I can believe the things that I do, despite our friendship
and our coming to understand each other on every point of doctrine or saying? Why is it
that you can see me as wise and value my point of view, and that I likewise honor you
and your faith, but we nevertheless ascribe to different worldviews?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 62
M: Yes! If we can find such harmony upon the deepest concepts of the cosmos; if we can
discover connection after connection between our worlds; if we can continually uncover
the ways that language has veiled the truth; if we are able to see that your word for this is
my word for that; how is it that you remain a Buddhist and I a Mormon?
B: Have there been other men and women in the history of the world who have lived by
and known truth but who were neither Mormon nor Buddhist?
M: Yes
B: What were they?
M: They were just people, good people, who did good things on the earth while they
lived.
B: Is it possible that they, like us, identified themselves with a particular religion or
worldview?
M: It is likely that it was so.
B: Is it also possible that there are other people in the world today who could join our
conversation and likewise be agreeable, honest, and as true to the truth as they are able to
be?
M: It is likely that it is so.
B: Then, if our places were switched, it seems that we would each go about doing good in
much the same way that we now aim to do.
M: Yet, we disagree on many points, do we not?
B: Such as?
M: Jesus Christ, for example. I am certain that he will come again to the earth and
establish a true order of justice and peace.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 63
B: That sounds wonderful, how can I disagree with that?
M: Well, you‟re not a Christian, are you?
B: That depends upon the judge.
M: Am I a Buddhist?
B: Sometimes I think you are a better one than I, sometimes not.
M: Ha. I think I‟m too much a fool to be a Buddhist.
B: Now you are a better Buddhist than I.
M: Right, the whole humility thing. . . So, let me ask you this. In Mormonism we talk of
types and shadows. We say that all things testify of Jesus Christ; even the very earth is a
witness to his name. A type and shadow is something that represents another thing that is
yet to be. For example, Abraham was required to sacrifice his first born son. This is a
type and shadow of Christ, the first born of God, who would be sacrificed. Isaac was to
be sacrificed on an altar which would represent atonement for sin; likewise, Jesus was
sacrificed to make atonement.
Following this line of thinking, to me, the Buddha is a type and shadow of Jesus Christ. I
see the Buddha as fulfilling a divine mission to testify to and show the world what the
Savior of all humankind would be like. Many prophets of the Old Testament can be
shown in this same light. Moses, who delivered the house of Israel, thus brought
salvation to the Jews. In our day, we say that all who will come unto Christ are adopted
into the house of Israel and they are thus saved through Jesus Christ. My question is
specifically about the Buddha, what think you of my interpreting his life as a type of
Jesus?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 64
B: It is sound and reasonable thinking. It is an archetypal way of seeing the world, to look
for patterns and connections across time and space.
M: Like the Mara and Satan similarities?
B: Yes
M: Interesting; I have actually wanted to have a conversation with you about the
connections between our religions, for some time now. Would you be willing to talk
about or identify every “archetypal” similarity between Mormonism and Buddhism that
we can discover?
B: Every similarity!? I am good for one hundred and eight, but then I will tire.
M: Very good! I wasn‟t thinking we would get past ten… We already know about how
Mara tempted Siddhartha three times, just as the Devil tempted Jesus three times. And I
think it is very interesting how Buddhism, generally, seems to talk about Mara as a
shadow side of the self or that Mara is the part within each of us that keeps us ignorant by
distracting us with desires. The difference with Satan is that we speak of him as an
outside force or spirit that tries to penetrate our thoughts with temptation.
B: If they both have the same effect on sentient beings, does it matter whether it is an
exterior or interior construct?
M: Do you remember when we had a conversation about whether or not the truth
matters?
B: Yes, but we are looking for types, for archetypes, we are not trying to determine
whether or not two different things are the same thing.
M: Ok. . . I see your point, you win. Why don‟t you lead our dialogue?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 65
B: As you wish. Consider the miracles that Jesus and the Buddha wrought. Both had
supernatural powers. Jesus and the Buddha walked on water, and the Buddha caused
water to dry up so that people could walk through on dry ground. Both healed many and
showed wonders to them that would believe. Next, consider their teachings. There is no
end to the parallels. The Buddha said, “Consider others as yourself”, Jesus said, “Do unto
other as you would have them do to you”. They each recommended to “turn the other
cheek” to an offender. Also: love your enemies; don‟t judge others without seeing your
own folly; you cannot walk two paths or serve two masters; riches make it hard to not
sin; blessed are the poor; go forth to teach the people, without possessions; whether the
widow‟s mite or a handful of dust, both can be good gifts; store up righteousness not
treasures on earth; beware of false teachers and false prophets; sin or desires enslaves the
person; Mara and Satan desire to make one stumble and fall, to ruin and destroy the soul;
and on and on do they agree. Some Buddhists study the teachings of Jesus, because he
can be seen as a great bodhisattva.
M: Impressive; I usually just think of how Jesus said to leave family and follow him and
that the Buddha teaches to renounce family, possessions, worldly ambitions in order to
follow the religious path to nirvana.
B: If you read the sayings of the Buddha, you will find virtually the same doctrines as
given in the Sermon on the Mount, and in many of Jesus‟ other teachings.
M: What I find quite interesting are all the similarities between their life narratives. I
remember a few things from a comparative religion course. Jesus was chosen for his
mission before he was born; so too was the Buddha looking over the earth for the right
moment to be born into it. Both did not have a mortal father, rather, each was
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 66
miraculously conceived. When they were just babies, both were recognized by spiritual
leaders as significant persons who would influence the world. Both were brilliant
children who seemed to understand more than the average person about the world. And,
what is it about people starting a ministry in their thirties?
B: Not too young, not too old. Many religious figures find that that is a nice time to
preach and find that they have the maturity or willingness to die for their cause.
M: How about their ability to discern spirits and understand human suffering to a
seemingly infinite degree? I know how Mormonism explains this fact about Jesus… Does
Buddhism address how such a thing is possible for the Buddha?
B: Quite so; perfect empathy that comes from total awareness.
M: How was this perfect or total awareness obtained?
B: It was as the sage made an ultimate and persistent effort to receive enlightenment
mind. Would you like to hear the story of how Gautama woke up?
M: Without delay, my friend.
B: You are most impatient, dear one. The Buddha vowed to stay under the fig tree in
Bodh Gaya for all eternity if that is what it took to obtain the truth!
M: Very well, I trade my haste for patience.
B: Close your eyes. . . Imagine that you have just had a vision of the whole world, and
that you can feel and see suffering in the minds and hearts of all people. Now imagine
that you begin to remember hundreds of past lives; you can see yourself as a beetle
crawling across the hot desert and then as a sparrow soaring through the air and you also
feel the pain and yearning for survival, for something to eat. Next, you feel sharp claws
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 67
tearing your body apart and you look back to see a lion has caught you, because your
hooves could not give you the speed necessary for escape.
You begin to understand suffering and pain, but you yearn for something better. Now,
you are born as monkey and you have a family, a sense of community. Pain and suffering
are shared within communal bonds. Now you are born as a human; whether you
understand the significance or not, you find that you have an incredible faculty for
questioning the world in a most peculiar way. You love your childhood, you discover
something new each day, and you continue to learn until you die.
You are born again, this time with greater awareness. People look up to you, you are a
leader and a friend to many, and you die. Again, you find yourself traversing a mortal
experience, but now, more than ever, you are hungry for the truth – you want to
understand what life is all about. You have seen suffering before, you recognize a strange
feeling when you hear about tortured and battered children, you cry. Your heart weeps as
you look into the world and see mothers, fathers, children, students, teachers, soldiers,
and others who suffer. You understand that they are more innocent than they judge each
other to be. You can see that they are ignorant of the true nature of reality. Again, you
weep. You love them, you have compassion for them, but you do not know what to do.
You make an endless effort to vigilantly “change the world”; you serve humanity all the
day long. In another life, you serve all living creatures, and you realize that those in the
human condition are most ripe for awakening – they are most capable of beholding the
truth. If only you could help a few of them see the truth, maybe they could experience
some sense of freedom, maybe they would join your cause to have compassion upon all
sentient beings. Again, you die. Now, open your eyes.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 68
M: . . . that was beautiful
B: Close your eyes again. You are upon a very high mountain, you are aware that there is
suffering in the entire world, but now you begin to see harmony, a balance that sustains
the entirety of the cosmos. You see a brother and a sister who are orphaned and on the
streets. The four year old boy protects his toddler sister from the elements. Miraculously,
he finds scraps of food and they navigate their circumstances with uncontestable
resilience. You are in pain as you feel for them, but suddenly a husband and wife who
could not conceive children of their own find these two little ones hiding behind a
dumpster during a very cold night. Before they arrive, your heart is about to break with
sorrow, but both the man and the woman turn the corner and halt for only a moment.
Then, they run to the children, they tear off their coats and cloth the little ones. They try
to ask the children where they are from, but it is only too obvious from their rags and a
small sack of what are hardly belongings that these children have no home.
The children are too weak to resist, so they find themselves in a cozy home, they are
nurtured to good health, and eventually they comprehend the word kindness. Many years
later, they embrace their parents for the first time when they finally are able to
comprehend love. Open your eyes.
M: …
B: Close your eyes. You are now traveling in and out of time. You are observing millions
of worlds going in and out of existence. You have now witnessed incalculable acts of
kindness and love, hatred and violence. You return to the top of a very high mountain and
you behold that you are nothing. You are everything. You comprehend all life, you are
life, you are death, and you are nothing. At this point in his meditation, the Buddha had
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 69
passed through two watches of night and two levels of mediation. Now, as though you
are the Buddha, you have seen all your past lives, you have seen all the lives of all living
things; past, present, and future. There is one final stage of mediation that you must pass
through. Once you have done this, you have a perfect heart of compassion and wisdom.
M: What is this final stage?
B: It is the most sacred teaching of Buddhism. It is to lose yourself so completely that
you become one. This is the essence of the Buddhist teaching – emptiness, or that there is
no-self
M: So, the Buddha‟s ministry, which he offers out of the compassion of his heart, is the
hope that his disciples might also become one, as he has become one. Six hundred years
later, Jesus is praying and teaching the exact same doctrine! This seems like some kind of
archetypal theme, this unifying principle.
B: Yes, and I now bid you share with me how your heart has received this archetype.
M: I should have gone first, you had me in tears and I hardly think I can narrate in such a
manner. But I will try. I am more dogmatically oriented than you, yet I believe the
scriptures say things well, so I will defer primarily to them.
Enoch, in the book of Moses is shown the whole human family and he “looked upon their
wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart
swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook” (Moses 7:41).
Bowels, especially „bowels of mercy‟ are central to how Mormonism understand the
compassion of Christ. Ammon spoke “that God is mindful of every people, whatsoever
land they may be in. . . and his bowels of mercy are over all the earth” (Alma 26:37). And
Alma is well known for his prophecy of Jesus, “And he shall go forth, suffering pains and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 70
afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which
saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. And he will take
upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will
take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy [emphasis
added], according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his
people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:11-12). Now close your eyes.
B: . . .
M: Ok, open them. Just seeing if you are paying attention.
B: I‟m sorry, what was that?
M: Moving on. . . Abinadi states that Jesus has conquered death and can mediate for all
men, “Having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of
men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon
himself their iniquity and their transgressions. . .” (Mosiah 15: 9, emphasis added).
Joseph Smith cries out in his writing, “Thy mind, O man! If thou wilt lead a soul unto
salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the
darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity – thou must commune with God.”, and in
the same letter, “Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the
household of faith” (as cited in Peters, 1999, p. 35 & D&C 121:45).
A Mormon scholar, John Peters, speaks of the bowels of mercy as the place of shared
humanity, the place from where we weep when see the children that you have placed into
our minds. He says that mercy, in Latin is “a heart of pity” from the word misericordia.
The idea is that Jesus received the bowels of mercy through the atoning process. It is
understood in Mormon thought that Jesus had an ultimate awakening experience in the
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 71
garden of Gethsemane, the night before his crucifixion. This is how his bowels were
filled with mercy.
There, Jesus had an experience that was typified 600 years earlier by Siddhartha
Gautama, as you have demonstrated. Like the Buddha, Jesus was shown the entirety of
all sentient lives; past, present, and future. The product was the same; he was filled with
compassion and wisdom. Elder Bateman recently said, “The Savior, as a member of the
Godhead, knows each of us personally… In the garden and on the cross, Jesus saw each
of us and not only bore our sins, but also experienced our deepest feelings so that he
would know how to comfort and strengthen us…” (Bateman, 1995).
B: Why do Christians so often tell this story so punitively, that Jesus “paid” for their
sins? There might exist a higher respect for Christianity if there were more talk on how
Jesus actually saves and enlightens.
M: I have asked many times, as a Christian, how is it made possible? What are the
mechanisms or reasons behind the function of the atonement? There seems to be a strong
tradition of accepting dogma based on good feelings, but the Lord says he reveals truth to
the heart AND mind. To me, this implies that understanding comes when both thoughts
and feelings agree upon a point of doctrine.
My favorite words in scripture which illuminate the concept of atonement are spoken by
Amulek. He states that no man can shed his blood to atone for another, so an infinite
atonement is necessary. Somehow someone needs to provide a sacrifice so deep and so
intimate and so eternal that all can be healed thereby. Amulek testifies that Jesus Christ
performs this act. “And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his
name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy,
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 72
which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith
unto repentance” (Alma 34: 15, emphasis added).
Amulek has me convinced that a vicarious death cannot suffice to redeem us, despite this
being the outward symbol of Christ‟s atonement. Instead, Amulek persuades me that
something deeper actualizes the power by which we are healed.
B: What is this something deeper?
M: Merrill Bateman (1996) put it this way, “The Savior's atonement in the garden and on
the cross is intimate as well as infinite. Infinite in that it spans the eternities. Intimate in
that the Savior felt each person's pains, sufferings, and sicknesses. Consequently, he
knows how to carry our sorrows and relieve our burdens that we might be healed from
within, made whole persons, and receive everlasting joy in his kingdom” (p. 49). I‟m not
sure what to call it; other than love, compassion, empathy, and a hope for wholeness and
unity.
B: A unifying archetype. It is purely and flawlessly evident that Jesus and Siddhartha
demonstrate the archetype of emptiness, the unifying principle of the cosmos.
For further reading on the Buddha‟s enlightenment, consider Kessler (2008, pp. 135-138); and
Mitchell (2002, pp. 18-20).
Personal reflections
In this piece, you now hear the personal feelings and reflections of a Mormon and a
Buddhist, who have considered the dialogue above. The authors of the following statements will
remain anonymous.
Mormon reflections: After reading, praying about and reflecting on the content within
this discussion and the chapters that correspond, I have felt a very strong acceptance of this line
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 73
of thought and others like it. If we are to help souls come unto Christ and be saved, this interfaith
dialogue should be a more common model of conversation. These types of conversations awaken
us to the reality that the vast majority of religions are built on very similar foundations. To me,
this is a testimony that there is a God and there is a unifying truth; a common vein of thought that
we all should live within. If the world would set the differences aside and look at the similar
attributes within the faiths, humanity would be much more united and closer to that deity that it
professes to believe. I enjoyed this very much and hope to see thoughts similar to this to take the
forefront of the world‟s mentality towards others and their beliefs.
Buddhist reflections: In Buddhism, we believe that anyone can achieve Buddha status
once she/he has reached enlightenment. To me, Jesus is someone who has reached enlightenment
and I pray to Jesus sometimes as well. Both religions strive to do the best to be kind and
compassionate. In Buddhism, our goal in practicing the teachings of Buddha is to gain the
wisdom and see reality as it is (through unfoggy glasses). While the practice and worship may
be different, Mormonism and Buddhism are similar in that they both advocate for people to do
good for others and the world. This conversation in your paper reminds me once again that we all
have the same goal---to do good and to benefit the world, no matter what our religion is.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 74
Chapter 7 – The value of archetypal analysis; yesterday, today and tomorrow
It appears that some persons are more naturally
endowed with expanded worldviews. Gandhi,
Mother Theresa, Buddha, Jesus, Einstein, Emerson,
and the like are a few examples who seem to have
expanded, expanding, or more mature worldviews
through which they see and talk about the world.
Landon Hasson (2013, p. 46)
I have been profoundly changed through my archetypal analysis of both faith traditions. I
found it fascinating to uncover the archetypal narrative about the principle of ultimate empathy
and compassion that both Jesus and the Buddha attained. Yet, I don‟t think my words are
complete for capturing these remarkable experiences and speaking to their value. Of course, I
refer to when the Buddha meditates under the Bodhi tree (a fig tree), and he experiences all life –
all deaths and births, etc. Only one other religion in the world tells the same story (that I am
aware of), it is the Mormon narrative of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. I think this story
matters. For both Mormonism and Buddhism, the outcome for Jesus and the Buddha are the
same, they each come away with compassion and wisdom for the entirety of all sentient life,
including humans. I‟ve thought of calling it, “the archetype of empathy.” I am not sure, yet, if
that will do.
Whatever we call this connection, Mormons can see value in this discussion, because of
the concept of “types and shadows” of Christ. The idea being that God calls, organizes, or
orchestrates personages in history to represent the advent of the Messiah. Likewise, Buddhists
can see value in this discussion because the most important figure of Buddhism seems to have
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 75
informed the central theme of Mormonism, the atonement of Christ. Each worldview might
naturally claim the others‟ story as their own, but both faiths can increase their respect and
understanding for each other as they understand how the same archetypal pattern has informed a
sacred concept. The value comes when one sees archetypal patterns as verifying or adding
context to truths held as sacred.
Looking across the world, we see certain themes that consistently unfold without regard
to space or time; it might be wise of us to take those themes and look for them within ourselves;
or to at least ask why such themes continue to emerge. For example, “Why is compassion toward
helpless beings archetypically demonstrated in artwork, religion, instinctive reactionary
behavior, etc.,” “Why do all cultures have a personification of evil?” Stephen Batchelor (2004), a
Buddhist trained in western modes of thinking talks of Satan and Mara, “The figure who tempts
Christ in the wilderness plays the same wily game as does Mara against Buddha” (p. 29). How
about selflessness? How many religions or worldview promote this idea? Why do archetypal
patterns emerge, and what do we learn about ourselves, our humanity, and our world?
Toward interfaith dialogue
Moacanin (2003) warns, “Militarism, materialism, and consumerism have run amok to
the point of drowning Western civilization and rapidly infecting the rest of humanity. Together
they emphasize the external and disregard the inner world [emphasis added]. As a result our
world is not only blind but unconscious and asleep” (p. vii). Continued:
Yet, there is a trend in Western society of a growing interest in spiritual
transformation, openness to larger dimensions, and self-realization, which Tibetan
Buddhism and the work of Jung are all about. Tibetan Buddhism has become
relatively well known, especially since the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 76
Peace Prize in 1989. Jung is not so well known, not even by Western Psychology.
(p viii)
I value the work of Carl Jung, the enlightened perspectives generously offere

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

The author retains all copyright ownership. The right to download or print any of the pages of these theses is granted by the copyright owner only for personal or classroom use. The author retains all proprietary rights, including copyright ownership. Any reproduction or editing by any means mechanical or electronic without the express written permission of the copyright owner is strictly prohibited.

Running head: ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 1
ARCHETYPE: A Story of Buddhist & Mormon Connections
by
LANDON BLAINE HASSON
Senior thesis submitted to my Integrated Studies Board of Utah
Valley University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a
Bachelor of Science in Integrated Studies
RELIGIOUS STUDIES AND PSYCHOLOGY
Orem, Utah
December 2013
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 2
Abstract
A Mormon and a Buddhist become friends and begin a conversation. The value of interfaith
dialogue is explored. The disciplines of psychology and religious studies are integrated into a
meaningful pattern. The product is a contribution to the exploration of human nature and the
work of comparative religion. Mormonism and Buddhism are briefly introduced and compared.
An in depth treatment of the concept and language of archetype is offered, especially as shaped
by Carl G. Jung. Archetypal analysis is presented as a useful instrument and paradigm for
building bridges across worldviews, improving respect and appreciation for persons whose
beliefs might be different than one‟s own, and for adding value and new insights into existing
beliefs that are held to be sacred and important. Mormonism and Buddhism are used for a case
example of archetypal analysis. The author argues that an archetypal “lens” can aid in becoming
aware of the intricacy and intimacy of the human experience. He suggests that the concept and
language of archetype offers a prototypical pattern and model for answering the fundamental
questions of similarities, differences, and the underlying reality from which our physical world
has sprung.
Keywords: archetype, Buddhism, comparative religion, interfaith-dialogue, Mormonism,
ontology, philosophy, psychology, religious studies.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 3
Introduction and summary
This study is a contribution to comparative religion and an instrument for archetypal
analysis. Although it may not appear so, this is a story of how archetypal narratives have merged
in meaningful ways or how connections between worldviews can lift people to new heights and
enlighten the mind. I integrate theory from the disciplines of religious studies and psychology.
The conversation which follows, in the prologue, is an example of interfaith dialogue by two
persons who possess great interest in understanding and becoming mindful of human nature, or
the complexity of the human problem.
It is both my intention to promote interfaith dialogue and to offer a new paradigm for
examining and becoming aware of the intricacy and intimacy of the human experience.
However, this work is not concerned with humans alone, for it is an analysis of all that was, now
is, and will be. Archetype is the language that can speak to these ends; rather, it is my argument
that the concept and language of archetype offers a prototypical pattern and model for answering
the fundamental questions concerning ultimate reality. This does not disaffirm the worldviews
and religions that are likewise helpful in this effort; instead, this is a platform upon which to
stand for those who are interested in the work of reaching across boundaries that otherwise
divide.
This archetypal story is centered on Jesus and the Buddha. As the narratives tell, upon
them both was imparted an awareness of all sentient lives; past, present and future – for every
living thing. Each came out of their experience with perfected empathy, compassion, and
wisdom to impart to all beings. Mormons should understand this connection as a confirmation
that all things testify and symbolize the Messianic mission of Christ. Buddhists should find a
deeper appreciation for the Awakened One as they see how Lord Buddha was the original and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 4
only known type of the atonement of Christ, as explained in Mormon restoration scripture. Both
the Mormon and Buddhist narratives serve to illuminate and add context to the other. Although
this story seems to only build bridges between Mormonism and Buddhism, this same pattern
applies generally.
Finally, I enjoy testing the line between the academy and the believers. I find myself
having to enter into both worlds to understand a broader view of the world. Additionally, I have
come across the problem of trying to translate archetypal language into English, for the sake of
this presentation. Upon review, I have observed that persons have greatly appreciated my
approach in one area, while others have taken great pause or even distaste to the very same
section. Words so often get in the way of understanding; however, let them be the best symbolic
referent that I can offer to my work.
Outline and procedure
Here, I present a brief summation of what follows. Chapter 1 was originally titled, “What
is Mormonism?” The intention of this section is not to explain Mormon theology in depth. It is
written to provide someone who is not familiar with Mormonism an overview of the Mormon
worldview. For this reason, I emphasize “the plan of salvation,” or what I argue is an accurate
model for demonstrating the ontological assumptions of Mormonism. Chapter 2 follows a similar
pattern as chapter 1. However, given that the Buddhist narrative has a more complex and lengthy
history, I spend a little more time telling the story of Buddhism. I spend less time explaining the
teachings of Buddhism, because there is a great variety in the interpretations of Buddhist beliefs.
Rather, there are many schools of thought that approach the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama,
and I felt it right to only mention the fundamental or general principles of Buddhism. This
chapter will likewise offer a fair view of the Buddhist worldview, as it has already been reviewed
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 5
by multiple Buddhist practitioners. In fact, both chapters 1 and 2 have been reviewed by
representatives of each faith tradition; their feedback has been invaluable to this work.
Chapter 3 is not considered to be a complete comparison of Mormonism and Buddhism,
but it is meant to show some divergences between the two faiths, in light of the fact that the
majority of this article focuses on similarities and connections. It might be the case that humans
have a tendency to dichotomize or to naturally see (look for) differences among things. This
might be a productive effort to promote individuality and to assign unique properties to things or
it might be a destructive effort that creates isolation, contention, or us versus them mentalities.
This study is written under the assumption that finding connections between worldviews can be
valuable. I further claim that such efforts can be seen as strengthening each worldview, by
adding additional content and meaning to their own respective narratives.
Chapters 4 and 5 lay the groundwork for the centerpiece of my analysis which takes place
in Chapter 6. Archetype is the “lens” through which I do my analysis and storytelling. Therefore,
I found it important to present two chapters that both define this framework and demonstrate the
value and potential uses for the language of archetype.
A skilled reader and an experienced scholar of comparative religion will observe many
connections that I have not found or addressed between the two religions in discussion. The
purpose of chapter 6 is to offer the reader a new opportunity to compare two worldviews with the
concept of archetype at the forefront of the mind. I do this so the reader may consider the value
of archetype as a concept or language for the work of inter-faith dialogue, or for the work of
comparative religion. I discuss the following questions: “Why are their archetypal images for the
personification of evil?,” “What do archetypes teach us about ourselves, our human nature?,” and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 6
“What about the story of enlightenment and atonement? What do these experiences teach us
about humanity, unity, love, understanding, charity, wisdom, compassion, etc.?”
I write chapter 6 in dialogue format because I have felt that this approach can tease a
different part of the mind in order to offer insight. Consider Plato and other ancient lore, and you
will know that this method is nothing new. The reflections portion of chapter 6 is intended to
allow a reader to ponder how the characters of each religion might consider the significance or
meaning of an archetypal approach to studying the worldviews of another. The reflections have
been written by a Buddhist practitioner and a Mormon adherent. Chapters 7 will tell a different
story, it tells my story. Here, you will hear my biases, opinions, and conclusions.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 7
Prologue - Conversation
Words that are strictly true seem to be paradoxical
-The Tao, Teaching 78.4
Once upon a mountain, two travelers crossed paths and began a conversation. They soon
discovered that one called himself a Mormon (M), the other called he a Buddhist (B). They were
neither near the Himalayas nor the Wasatch Range. They were somewhere else, somewhere that
no one had ever been. A question was brought to the mind of the Mormon. Fortunate for him, his
new friend, was a wise Buddhist Monk:
M: My friend, why do you think that David fell?
B: Who is David?
M: David was an Israelite, favored by God and blessed with extraordinary strength and
faith.
B: What did David do?
M: David stood against the Philistine army as only a small boy, to fight the single
greatest warrior in the adversarial ranks. Goliath, who he slew, was about 10 feet tall.
David‟s fame grew, and because of his faith in God, he was a great leader among men.
God anointed him as king of Israel, gave him many wives, and prospered the kingdom
under David‟s rule.
One day, David was supposed to be with his men on the battlefield, but he stayed home
and “happened” to see Bathsheba bathing in her home below. David continued to watch
her, and lust grew within him. He invited her into his chambers and consequently slept
with her. Not only was this unauthorized sexual relations, but Bathsheba was already
married and she became pregnant from her “activities” with David.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 8
To cover his sins, David called home her husband from the battlefield so that it would
look like her husband got her pregnant. However, David must have still wanted to be
with Bathsheba or wanted the child or both, because he sent her husband into the
frontlines of a battle where he would surely die. He did die, and David took Bathsheba as
his wife.
B: What is meant that “David fell?”
M: God blessed David above all men, yet David sinned against God and thereby lost
those blessings and favor. David was under covenant not to murder or commit adultery. If
David would have honored his covenants he would have eventually been exalted, that is,
he would have sat with Gods and Goddesses, he would have become just as the Father.
David fell from exaltation, most specifically because of murder. We hear later that David
repents and is loved by the Lord, but the Lord recently said that “… [David] hath fallen
from his exaltation” (D&C 132:39).
B: Did not David then “fall” because of desire which is the cause of all suffering?
M: That sounds reasonable, but how does desire cause all suffering?
B: This is one of the four noble truths of Buddhism, that desire is the cause of all sorrow
and suffering. The enlightened person is free from suffering when she sees the cause of it.
Or, insight into the true nature of reality brings enlightenment, enlightenment yields
freedom from our anguish or pain. To understand the cause of suffering, one must
understand that there is no self. There is no David, there is only emptiness. When one
understands this, they will no longer suffer.
M: There is only emptiness? What does this mean?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 9
B: Our suffering comes from our desire to separate everything, to create dichotomous
realities. Everything is emptiness.
M: Are you speaking about a unity of all things? If there is only emptiness…which
is…Everythingness, does this imply a necessary connectedness of all things to all things?
B: Yes
M: How does this understanding bring enlightenment or freedom from suffering?
B: Does not your Jesus say that, “the truth shall set you free”? Did not Jesus say that he
and the father are one, and then pray that his disciples would also be one with them?
M: Yes, this is true.
B: Then you understand that the enlightened mind can see the unity of things, but you do
not understand the nature of Jesus and his disciples. You see them as individual selves
with individual autonomy.
M: Am I to see you and I as not you and I?
B: That is a beginning.
M: A beginning to what? I do not understand.
B: Who does not understand?
M: Me! “I”, the person you are talking with.
B: Who is the person I am talking with?
M: If who is I, then I am who. Who are you to say otherwise . . . ?
B: The question I am asking is, what is it that is you? What is the who with whom I
speak?
M: I am a human being, and I certainly have my individual autonomy.
B: Then you are still asleep, you do not see.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 10
M: And how can you be so certain of this? Perhaps I am the one who sees and you are yet
to understand.
B: I am happy to be the one who will yet understand.
M: Who are you?
B: I am emptiness. Pure consciousness.
M: And this is the truth that I am to understand? David fell because he did not understand
that he was nothingness, or emptiness or pure consciousness!?
B: Thou sayest…
M: Very funny. But, perhaps you are right. I am just thinking of a scripture in the Book of
Mormon. King Benjamin is speaking to his people, before his death, “. . . My friends and
my brethren, my kindred and my people, I would again call your attention, that ye may
hear and understand the remainder of my words which I shall speak unto you. For behold,
if the knowledge of the goodness of God at this time has awakened you to a sense of your
nothingness, and your worthless and fallen state” (Mosiah 4: 4-5). Here, I always read
nothingness as being used for comparison, to contrast the power of God to the lack of
power in man.
You seem to be adding a new context; IN FACT, King Benjamin even compares this
nothingness to a “state” of being! As if there is something intrinsic about our human
nature, that it is a state of nothingness. This reminds me also of Moses after he was taken
into the presence of God, “And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours
before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto
himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had
supposed” (Moses 1: 10, emphasis added).
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 11
B: Now you are beginning to see.
M: Yes, I think so. Here, look at these words with me. I think Mormon is writing
commentary on Nephite history, “Yea, how quick to be lifted up in pride; yea, how quick
to boast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity; . . . yea, how slow to walk in
wisdom‟s paths!” Here the problem is illuminated, “Behold, they do not desire that the
Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them . . . O how great
is the nothingness [emphasis added] of the children of men; yea, even they are less than
the dust of the earth” (Helaman 12: 7).
It‟s a little hard for me to conceptualize, but it seems like the Nephites are being rebuked
for all their wicked desires, and that the state of all men is a state of nothingness. An
awareness of our nothingness helps us root out our desires, which then helps us come
unto the light. Wow, that sounds very, very Buddhist.
B: That is exactly what Buddhism is about. When one follows that path, they are then
filled with wisdom and compassion. One who has followed this path will live selflessly,
for the benefit of all sentient life.
M: So, desire really is the cause of suffering. I can now perceive that the devil fell from
the light of truth, because of his desires. The devil desired everything; he would not
acknowledge the state of his nothingness before the Father. Lucifer desired God‟s power
and God‟s glory.
B: In Buddhism, we have a similar figure who we call Mara. Mara is the symbol for
delusion. Mara is the god of death and desire. Mara is found in all unenlightened beings,
people who are still asleep, and he tempts man away from seeing reality as it really is. To
be free of suffering is to be free of Mara.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 12
M: To be filled with desire, is it the same as to be filled with delusion?
B: Yes
M: Satan and Mara, do you see them as filled with desire?
B: Yes
M: Hmm. . . . How about the desire for good? Is it not good and reasonable to desire the
truth, or to desire enlightenment?
B: It might seem a great irony, to some, that one must have no desire for enlightenment to
attain enlightenment. One must remove their own self out of the equation as to be on the
path to Nirvana. It is another great irony that one must lose themselves to find
themselves; sound familiar? Enlightenment is the byproduct of self-less living, to live as
though there is no self. Compassion and wisdom are yoked with truth and enlightenment.
So, consider now my response to your question: Had David been less concerned with
satisfying himself and more concerned with the selfless service that kingship implies, this
king would have never “fallen.” But, I do not know much about this story, nor your
beliefs.
M: Well, yours have been most helpful to me, thank you.
B: With gladness.
The Monk was happy to help a friend along his path, but the Mormon was now thinking about
other questions, “How can I have more compassion and wisdom, that I might avoid pitfalls like
David’s?,” “Is it not the nature of the human experience to fall and fall again?,” “Why is it
considered so terrible to sin against greater light or knowledge?,” “Has there ever been an
enlightened person, according to Buddhist thought, who later committed an act of selfishness, or
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 13
would a Buddhist just say that such a person was never enlightened to begin with?” After some
time, the friends crossed paths again:
M: Hello friend, care to entertain me on matters of life and death?
B: Certainly, what particular matters have you in mind?
M: What matters indeed? And to see into my mind, I hope so. . . I am thinking perhaps or
perhaps not metaphysically, wanting to perceive the physics of choice. I am imagining
karma as a real substance that attaches to the soul, as if it were metaphorical for light and
darkness. That is to say, all choices either bring light or darkness into the soul.
B: Do you call darkness the absence of light?
M: Yes
B: Then what you are saying appears consistent or similar to the concepts of good and
bad karma – found in Buddhism. But, what do you mean by “the physics of choice”?
M: If physics were complete and metaphysics complete, they would be the same thing.
Metaphysics seems to talk about the reality that we do not yet understand, and is the
source for questions and experiments that Physicists work with. Where physics and
metaphysics meet, that is where I ask from. But until this conversation is complete, let me
call it the “metaphysics of choice.” Yet, I am searching for the physics of eternal light
and eternal darkness, the physics of karma, the physics of things not seen with the natural
eye, but perceived with the mind and heart. By the physics of choice I mean, what
happens to the soul or root intelligence when a choice is made?
B: Would knowing the answer change the way you live?
M: I should think so.
B: Why?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 14
M: Knowing the truth yields a freeing and happy feeling. I live better and have more
compassion for my brother when I gain knowledge of truth.
B: You have asked a question that I cannot answer; I do not understand the “physics of
choice.” But I ask you to consider again, would the answer to this question matter?
M: Do you believe humans are free to choose?
B: I believe humans are ignorant. As long as humans remain ignorant, they are not free.
M: What of those who are not ignorant, like the Buddha, are they free?
B: Yes
M: Did the Buddha not choose to follow a path to enlightenment? Did he not choose to
be free?
B: Choose, yes. Freedom came later. The path to enlightenment is the path to freedom.
M: What is freedom?
B: Release from Samsara, to no longer wallow in ignorance and continual rebirth, this is
freedom – to behold reality as it truly is.
M: How can one be free if they are ignorant to the truth?
B: One who is ignorant is not free.
M: Then it seems to me that the answer to my question is important; rather it is necessary
for freedom. If we do not understand the consequence of our choices then we are as
ignorant as an unruly child. And I believe that to fully understand the consequences of
our choices, we must understand the actual or physical consequences of our choices.
Perhaps you would agree that every choice might cause us to become more ignorant or
closer to enlightenment?
B: Good or bad karma, yes.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 15
M: Then I will call good karma, light; and bad karma, darkness. Ignorance, then, is to
possess darkness in our beings. Enlightenment, then, is a “blowing out” of ignorance, all
darkness removed and only light remains.
B: Yes. Now I have a question for you. You say that the Devil was once an angel of light.
Was he then an enlightened being?
M: Inasmuch as he was an angel of light, then by our definition, we might say he was
enlightened.
B: How do you understand that an enlightened being became the devil – source of all evil
– father of lies? That he has no light in him?
M: Just as all ignorant beings might potentially become enlightened, so too, might
enlightened beings potentially become ignorant.
B: Is the Devil ignorant?
M: Yes
B: Do you not say that the Devil reigns with blood and horror on the earth; that the Devil
knows all the tricks to tempt man to sin, and that the Devil knows all of us by name?
M: The Devil might say that he reigns, but I would not say this is true. The Devil
remembers each of us from before the creation of the earth, and yes, the Devil knows
how to tempt man toward sin.
B: Given the Devil‟s knowledge, would you say that he has an enlightened understanding
of the world, perhaps reality?
M: I would not; I maintain that he is ignorant.
B: Will you explain?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 16
M: Certainly. Adolf Hitler and Mohandas Gandhi each knew more about the world than I
do. They each knew more than I do of how to influence people. They had each read more
and studied more than I. It is therefore tempting to say that compared to them, I am more
ignorant. However, ignorance means something different to both you and me.
Ignorance, as we have discussed, is a measure of darkness or blindness that is contrasted
with light. I would say that Gandhi is more enlightened than I, and I am more enlightened
than Hitler. Just as humans build up a false reality all about them (perhaps because of
desires), so has the Devil built up a false world. The Devil has constructed a reality of
utter darkness, a kingdom of ignorance, an abyss of lies and deceit. His conception of
reality is utter foolishness; it is an almost comical and foolish misery. Therefore, he is
ignorant and has no light in him.
The Devil is like an evil analyst who may have a vast and complex understanding of the
functions of both consciousness and unconsciousness, yet there is not virtue in him. Of
course we must understand what knowledge is, and it is not facts, information, and
memories. The Devil has plenty of that. Knowledge is light and truth, and most people
commonly mistake knowledge for information, theory, fact, etc. However, any person
with normal capacities can acquire this type of knowledge, and yet, never come to a
knowledge of truth; a very different kind of knowledge, the only kind of knowledge that
matters in the end.
B: Yes, Buddhism also perceives that knowledge is something quite different than facts,
information, and memories. I am pleased with your explanation of the devil, but I have
another question.
M: Ask.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 17
B: You stated earlier that ignorant beings might become enlightened and that enlightened
persons might become ignorant. Can God become ignorant?
M: If He did, then he would cease to be God. It is like trying to imagine that Jesus,
Gandhi, or the Buddha was to become selfish, violent, and wicked. They would no longer
be Jesus, Gandhi, or the Buddha; at least the history on them would be something quite
different. A Mormon would likely tell you that God would never choose to let darkness
in, but restoration scripture lends that such a choice is possible however unlikely is might
be. How that works, I don‟t know.
Eons of time had passed, whether it was hundreds of reincarnations later or a mere moment of
eternity that slipped between them, they spoke again. This is what was said:
B: Once upon a time, we talked about choice. We called it the “physics of choice,” do
you remember?
M: Yes, that was a wonderful conversation.
B: Have you thought more about it?
M: I have, and you?
B: Yes, and I have a question now, for you. Will you hear it?
M: I will listen. If my ears are any good, I will hear.
B: What might we say about that which chooses; the acting agent in all living things?
M: It is intelligence. Intelligence that has been placed into and environment where it can
be enticed, compelled, or called upon to exercise its‟ will.
B: What you speak of, I call consciousness or Buddha nature. It is the light within all
living things; it is the potential to become a Buddha.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 18
M: What do you say of the will power, or the capacity to act? And, can one strengthen or
increase their capacity to act?
B: The body is like a vehicle through which the Buddha nature may act in the world. Yet,
the body also cripples the will; much like a prison or shackles might inhibit physical
freedom. Yoga is the ancient art of yoking the spirit to God, Brahman, or ultimate light or
reality. This is one practice that increases the capacity to act. Thus, strengthening the
body can lend itself to strengthening the mind. But I must caution; some strengthen the
body for the body‟s sake, this is not wise. One should strengthen the body for the sake of
the mind.
M: Does a person‟s intention matter if the outcome is the same? Why does it matter, the
reason a person strengthens their body? Do they not benefit from a stronger body, even if
accomplished for the body‟s sake?
B: If I were to write my lover a tender letter as to obtain an intimate benefit from her; is
this different than to write the same letter with only the intention that she feel loved and
appreciated?
M: If you were to write a letter to a lover then you would forfeit your monkness, not a
good idea… Yes, it is different. The woman may soon discover your wicked ploy. Even
if she does not, by your own intention, you become either more selfless or selfish.
B: That is right. Likewise, to strengthen the body for the body‟s sake will yield certain
outcomes. One might attain to a more attractive body, but with increased ego or sense of
self, thus increasing their ignorance. Ironically, some claim to practice the art of yoga, but
they are accomplishing quite the opposite goal. They increase physical capacities and
appearances while increasing their ego or sense of self; they do not yoke their spirit to
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 19
god or light, rather they distance themselves from truth and enlightenment. Others
understand that their true self is their consciousness, that the body houses their mind or
spirit, and that the body is a vehicle through which they act out the experience of life.
These are more likely to exercise the body for the sake of the mind. These are they who
increase their power of will, who strengthen their capacities to act. They have greater
capacity for attaining to enlightenment.
For years, eternities, and the singularity of a timeless moment, the friends spoke and their
appreciation and respect for each other never ceased to increase. The Buddhist did not feel
bothered that his friend would forever call himself a Mormon, and the Mormon honored and
praised his friend for his selfless choice to serve all living creatures. Religion or differences in
worldview did not prevent the eternal growth of this friendship. If you are interested, I just
remembered an earlier conversation that they had. This was back when they had first met –
millions of years ago, feel free to listen:
M: Have you heard people speaking of moral theories?
B: Yes
M: How might you define a moral theory?
B: A model or framework designed for the purpose of conceptualizing how and why
humans may or may not act rightly.
M: What does it mean to act rightly?
B: To act for the benefit of all sentient beings.
M: Would you say that religions have moral theories that dictate appropriate behavior
and actions? Does Buddhism have a moral theory?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 20
B: All religions, if they are to be considered valuable to the world, suggest to their
followers to lead a selfless life. Buddhism teaches that one should negate their personal
desires and notions of self. Buddhism teaches one to act in a way as to benefit all sentient
life.
M: What do you think of the philosophical constructs of moral theories? For example:
Relativism, Divine Command Theory, Intuitionism, etc.
B: These are theories which man has made as an attempt to explain the various ways that
humans act out morally. These theories no better represent morality than do theories of
exercise represent exercise. The theories become the languages that are used to describe
the phenomenon.
M: Does the study of moral theory help one to be moral?
B: Does the study of religion help one to be more religious? Does the study of exercise
help one to exercise?
M: Instinctively, I want to say yes. However, I have seen Doctors of Medicine who are
fat and lazy; psychiatrists with more mental problems than their patients; and many other
ironies that lead me to believe that the study of something does not yield the fruition of
the relevant content.
B: I have seen this as well.
M: What is interesting, however, is that there is another way to talk about the same
scenarios, without the irony. For example, when we use the word to describe someone
and that word implies the act; healers heal, runners run, doers do, learners learn, etc. It
seems that it is in the doing that the person becomes or reaches the goal. And if this is so,
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 21
is there any purpose in studying? Why study anything about moral principles when you
can just get up and live a moral life?
B: One who studies faithfully may discover a question. One who discovers a question
might find and answer. An answer may provide wisdom. Wisdom yields truth and light.
Truth and light teach compassion. Compassion compels one to live rightly. One who
lives rightly will study and ask questions.
M: Remember that whole Buddhist concept of Samsara, that never ending cycle where
nothing is new? That sounds like the same thing as what you just said. . .
B: . . .
M: A little help here?
B: . . .
M: Ok, fine. I am able to imagine that some need to study in order to compel them toward
a deeper level of understanding which may yield a more compassionate lifestyle. But
don‟t you think that there is a point when studying can become a hindrance or it is too
excessive?
B: To study is to hinder.
M: I‟ve heard how Buddhists enjoy contradiction, and now I know it‟s true. Forgive me
though if I am starting to think your contractions are an excuse to not answer my
question. A simple “I don‟t know” would seem more appropriate.
B: Are you ignorant?
M: Pardon?
B: Do you comprehend all things, or are you ignorant to the true nature of reality?
M: Between those options, I choose ignorance.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 22
B: Then you are wise. Studying is hindering just as ignorance is hindering. Therefore, let
your ignorance be hindered by your studying.
M: Would you say that studying disrupts ignorance?
B: If it is done well.
M: What about an enlightened person, do they study?
B: The enlightened mind sees without eyes and hears without ears. The enlightened has
only to ask and the answer is given.
M: Sounds like, “ask and ye shall receive.” Jesus must have only been speaking to the
enlightened, if He could make that kind of promise.
B: It is only the enlightened who hear what is being said.
M: How would I know if I were enlightened?
B: You would not be asking me that question.
M: But the enlightened still ask questions, as you said.
B: I also said they are given the answer. And the answer comes before the question is
asked.
M: My head hurts. And I feel stumped.
B: That is a good place to be.
M: Why is that?
B: The emptiness where unanswered questions dwell is the space where reality is beheld.
If you are in that space, your spiritual eyes are opened. The man who will remain in
ignorance is afraid of that space. He will not enter in. The ignorant man will only ask
questions of which he believes the answers will soon come. Or, he pretends to have the
answer so he does not have to face the emptiness. In either case, he is afraid or a liar.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 23
M: I feel like I live in that space of unanswered questions.
B: What a place from where to begin a journey. Your questions will take you to the
insight of emptiness.
M: Hmm. . . .
B: Om. . . .
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 24
Chapter 1 – Mormonism
Just as is difficult to explain any particular worldview with accuracy, Mormonism will be
challenging to introduce. I will briefly discuss some basic historical context for the beginnings of
the faith, suggestions as to contemporary culture and behavior, and a few basic elements of the
“Plan of Salvation” (the central worldview of Mormonism).
Mormonism is a part of restorationism Christianity. Mormons believe that their church
was not a correction of any established organization. Rather, their church was restored to the
correct ecclesiastical system that was established anciently. The idea is that Adam and Eve were
introduced to the covenants, doctrines, principles, and ordinances of salvation and exaltation; we
will refer to this as the gospel. Through human agency, the gospel is either kept or lost. When it
is lost, God withdraws His prophets and authority, or his priesthood, which Mormons believe is
the power and authority to administer the gospel. When this type of withdrawal of priesthood
occurs, Mormons call these periods of time a general apostasy. It was during a time of general
apostasy that Mormonism begins; thus the proper name of the church, The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Latter-day” is a reference that the same gospel that was had
anciently has been restored, but in the final days before the return of Jesus Christ. Latter-day is
also a referent to the “last days.”
As Mormon missionaries will tell you, in the year 1820 the story of Mormonism begins.
Joseph Smith was only fourteen years old; however, he is a very sober child with an unusually
strong hunger for truth. Joseph came from a family heritage of strong spiritual and religious
convictions, although Joseph‟s father was not affiliated with any denomination. Josephs‟ father
and grandfather both claim to have had visions and dreams that from their seed a prophet would
arise. Joseph was concerned about which denomination to join and asked God for some answers.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 25
Joseph was visited by God and Jesus; he was told that no ecclesiastical system was free of
corruption, based on their creeds and their lip-service to God while denying the power of God.
Joseph was continually visited and instructed by God, Jesus, angels, ancient patriarchs of the
priesthood, etc. Ultimately, Joseph was called and given authority to be the prophet of the
restoration; that is, Joseph brought about new scripture, correctly interpreted old scripture, and
fulfilled the will of God on the earth. He was also given proper authority to administer the
ordinances and covenants that were made anciently.
With priesthood properly restored, Mormons believe that they are led by prophets,
apostles, and other authorized persons. The ecclesiastical structure reflects that of the New
Testament organization that is explained by Luke, Paul and others of 1st century Christianity.
Mormons represent just over two percent of one percent of the world‟s population.
Mormon culture has certain trappings that make it unique. First, language and conversations
between Mormons contain things like, “eternal progression,” mission stories that often involve
unfriendly dogs, prayers that often include “please bless us to return home in safety,”
terminology that is specific to Mormon concepts of salvation, and cultural myths/jokes such as,
“the more you knock doors in the rain, the better looking your marriage partner will become.”
Mormon homes are often decorated with images that represent Mormon traditions. You
might see pictures of the temple where the couple was married, homemade crafts that might
include a scripture or spiritually encouraging quote engraved upon it, and many objects that
promote family centeredness or explicitly say something like “family is forever.” Also, you will
notice that Mormons try to maintain a neat and orderly appearance in all aspects of their lives.
Consequently, Mormons dress neatly and modestly, they stay well groomed and professional
looking, and they often feel motivated to keep a clean and inviting environment in their homes.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 26
However, just like in Buddhism – which will be discussed next – Mormonism may be
different in some respects in different parts of the world. For example, you might not hear a
Mormon pray for protection to get home in safety, when they live on a small island and their
place of residence is forty two feet from their place of worship. Just as culture and language
influence the interpretation of human behavior in all parts of the world, Mormonism is colored
by the environment through which it is observed. However, a centralized authority yields a
general consistency in belief, doctrines, practices, and principles. I will conclude this section on
Mormonism with a limited treatment of the Plan of Salvation, which is a consistent concept from
which almost all Mormons frame their conception of reality and the purpose for their lives.
The Plan of Salvation outlines God‟s plans and purposes for all living things. It explores
the infinite design of the cosmos, explains why there is opposition in all things (including evil in
the world), and suggests a fundamental perspective (often called an “eternal perspective”) that
one should adopt in order to properly “work out” their own salvation and to see things as God
sees them.
Here, we will expand on just four concepts of the Plan of Salvation; larger and better
treatments can be found elsewhere. The four concepts we will visit here are: the pre-mortal state
of existence; the Adam and Eve narrative; post-mortal existence in a spirit world; and the
culmination of the plan of salvation which includes resurrection, judgment, and eternal life.
Pre-existence
The principle of pre-mortal existence or pre-earth life is understood as the condition of
our existence before the world was created (for doctrinal references, see appendix 1). Because of
the teaching of pre-earth life, Mormons conceptualize that personality is of an ancient or eternal
nature; the bodies of one‟s offspring might very well house spirits that are more ancient and wise
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 27
than the parents. For this reason, children are quite sacred. Abortions are frowned upon, in part,
because they deprive a primordial spirit from entering mortality.
Mormons might look at a great actor among humanity, like Mohandas Gandhi, and infer
that Gandhi was a great and noble spirit of compassion and justice before he ever came to earth.
However, not all people choose to remain as faithful on earth as they were in the presence of
God. This also means that some people who were somewhat ambiguous in their faithfulness to
God while in His presence, at least, have the potential to become great disciples while on earth.
One unfortunate consequence of this idea is that some Mormons have rationalized that certain
races or groups of people suffer more on Earth because they were not so faithful while with God.
Other Mormons might take the opposite position, that those who are “called” to suffer much in
this life may actually be stronger in spirit, and thus by suffering they are being prepared to do
great things for others. The fact that such discrepancies exist, is often used as support for the
argument that prophetic and centralized authority is a necessity to maintain purity in the gospel.
Adam and Eve Narrative
With the Mormon concept of pre-earth life in the backdrop, Mormons believe that mortal
life needed to have the necessary oppositions that would provide opportunity for growth. The
Adam and Eve story is told as the essential process of bringing opposition into the world. Some
forms of Christianity accuse mother Eve of a great evil when she partook of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil. Mormons believe in a fortunate fall and respect Eve for her wisdom
and understanding of God‟s eternal plan. We might infer that God and Eve “out played” the
devil; they each had confidence that the pains of a mortal state would be proving and beneficial
to humanity. While the devil was attempting to disrupt God‟s plan in the Garden of Eden, he
actually provided an opportunity to bring evil, or opposition into the world. Mormons understand
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 28
that the Devil or evil is allowed on the earth, because all people must choose to overcome it if
they desire eternal life. This, in part, is why Mormons are hardly troubled by the philosophical
“problem of evil”; because, rather than evil being a problem for God‟s existence, it is a natural
form of opposition which makes growth a possibility.
Mormons say that God knew that Adam and Eve would partake of the forbidden fruit. In
fact, God even asserts “for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die” (Genesis 2:
17). Mormons do not hold any malice against Eve‟s decision. The highest blessings, powers, and
promises are presented to persons inside Mormon temples. To receive these, men are required to
prove themselves by obtaining the priesthood and maintaining worthiness. Likewise, women are
to maintain the same standard of worthiness.
Mormons look at Adam and Eve with admiration and gratitude for pioneering the way to
a necessary mortal experience. Mistakes are necessary for progress, but God has already
prepared a way for our recovery and growth through Jesus Christ who was prepared or chosen
“before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1: 4). Also, the Adam and Eve narrative, as
taught in Mormonism, allows Mormons to infer that God did not make a mistake in the garden.
Instead, everything works toward the fulfilling of God‟s purposes. This also helps Mormons to
have confidence when considering fears, evil, or the devil; because these things are allowed to
exist even though God has power over them. The devil sometimes seems like just another
resource which God can manipulate or direct to produce virtuous results, or in the case of
mortality, to help His children learn and grow.
Spirit world
Mormonism teaches that there is no end to learning and growth. The death of the body is
just a step in the eternal process of progression. Mormons believe there is a place that most
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 29
people go after they die, but before they are resurrected to be received into a kingdom of glory.
This space between is called the spirit world. Here, personalities are able to continue to learn,
grow, and accept the saving principles of salvation. Mormons even perform saving ordinances
(sacred rituals necessary for salvation and exaltation; ex., baptism) for those who have died and
cannot do the ordinances themselves. This effort is sometimes called work for the dead.
Doing work for the dead is a significant part of Mormon culture and behavior. Couples
and individuals go often to temples in order to serve their ancestors through this work. A high or
important ordinance performed there is the “sealing” of husband and wife together for all time
and eternity. Therefore, in this life and the next, the central purpose of the Gospel of Christ is to
help, as many as will, enjoy an eternal family where husbands, wives, and children are all sealed
to each other and to God.
Resurrection, Judgment, and Kingdom of Glory
Finally, Mormons do not dichotomize the eternal state of the soul as being sent to either
heaven or hell. In fact there is a place prepared for each person, relevant to their desires and
choices. Mormons find justification, in the Bible, where Paul speaks of kingdoms like the sun,
moon, and stars (1 Corinthians 15: 40-41). Elsewhere, Paul speaks of a “third heaven” (2
Corinthians 12: 2). Mormons teach that God presides over the highest kingdom, Jesus over the
next, and the Holy Ghost over the lowest of the three. Mormons teach that even the lowest
kingdom of glory is greater than any experience to be had on earth. Mormons teach that we
practically judge ourselves based on how we choose to live. Judgment will be perfectly just.
Every soul will go exactly where their desires have led them.
It is taught that God‟s greatest desire for his children is that they receive all that He has
and is. For that reason, God makes possible that everyone can become like God. Also, God is
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 30
married to Goddess(es). Men may become like Heavenly Father, while women may become like
“Heavenly Mother.” Mormons infer that Heavenly Father implies Heavenly Mother. This is why
there is such an emphasis on sealing couples together; it is part of “becoming like God.”
As one can imagine, these concepts of the plan of salvation have a significant impact on
the worldview and behavior of Mormons. They see themselves as part of a grand eternal family.
Not only do they feel an eternal relationship to Father in Heaven, but they understand themselves
to have a Mother in heaven. Furthermore, they literally see themselves as children of these
heavenly parents as well as belonging to an even larger “extended” family. This is a very grand
and complex worldview. In a way this kind of worldview, that is so all encompassing, resembles
some of eastern thought where all things are part of one great whole, or that all truth is
circumscribed into an ultimate completeness.
Mormon doctrine suggests that truth can be found in every worldview (similar to a Hindu
approach); however, Mormons have a centralized authority through prophets and apostles, which
is how doctrine or truth is established.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 31
Chapter 2 – Buddhism
A priest once came to the edge of a wide and tumultuous
river. He looked across and saw a monk on the other side.
The priest shouted, “How did you get to the other side!?”
The return came, “You are on the other side!”
– A Buddhist koan.
Buddhism and the Tibetan tradition
The story of Buddhism is in some respects more difficult to capture than the story of
Mormonism; partly because Buddhism does not have centralized authority. The historical
Buddha had no desire to organize a church, a sect, or a system through which his teachings could
be disseminated. He seems to have only wanted to share the insights that were given to him.
Although the Buddha worked miracles and made prophecies, he only did so out of the love or
compassion he had for those to whom he ministered or taught. I will introduce only a few
disciplines of Buddhist thought, as the purpose here is to have in mind a common idea of the
narratives and fundamental teachings that are meaningful in Buddhism, generally.
It is approximately the 6th century B.C.E. in which the story of Siddhartha Gautama
begins. His birth was reportedly auspicious, his upbringing paradoxical to his life journey, and
his teachings more curious and influential than his life narrative. We will call him the Buddha,
“the awakened one”, but it is interesting to note the many names by which he may be called.
Gautama is the family name from whence he came. His family were members of the Sakya clan,
which was a prominent and powerful clan of the warrior-caste who lived near the foothills of the
Himalayas (in the northern part of India). He was later called, Sakyamuni, which literally means,
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 32
“sage of the Sakya clan.” Siddhartha is also a name which came later; it means “one who has
achieved his goal” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 11).
Accounts vary on the details, yet it was prophesied – at the time of the Buddha‟s birth –
that he would become either a great warrior who might unite all of India, or he would follow the
path of the aesthetic (or samana) and become a great religious leader. It is said that the Buddha‟s
father, Suddhodana, wanted his son to fulfill the former, that is, to become a mighty political
leader. Suddhodana was a great king and, therefore, had the power and resources to create an
environment which he thought would lead his son away from a religious life. The Buddha was
thus raised with every pleasure and convenience imaginable. He was surrounded by healthy
servants (to not expose him to illness or death), beautiful women (to persuade him that a life of
power is a life of pleasure) and immaculate, grand palaces for every season of the year. The
Buddha also fell in love and married. His wife gave him a son, and the Buddha confesses that he
loved his family very much. Yet, he seemed to always have a curiosity about himself, a yearning
that would lead him down a religious path and a path to enlightenment.
On the Buddha‟s thirtieth birthday, he enjoyed a chariot ride that took him outside of the
palace to the countryside. This was beyond the area of “his home that was secured by his father
from anything upsetting” (Mitchell, 2002, p. 14). It is said that he saw – for the first time – what
were later called, “the Four Sights.” He saw an elderly person, a sick man, and a corpse, and a
spiritual practitioner. The realities of human suffering shocked him. He went home but found
that the images of suffering and death were still on his mind. He could no longer enjoy his
luxurious life. “Returning to the palace, Gautama fell into melancholy and could no longer find
any enjoyment in the pleasures of his princely life” (p. 15). He determined that he needed to
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 33
leave his father‟s palace. Siddhartha left his old life behind him to seek for a way to end these
sufferings.
Not taking his decision lightly (assuring that his family would be properly cared for), and
being fully committed to a spiritual journey, the Buddha set off to find the “truth.” He began by
looking for spiritual teachers to increase his understanding. His journey cannot be told
adequately here, but I will speak to few significant events.
First, upon leaving his home to begin his pilgrimage, he was tempted by Mara. Some
Buddhist traditions understand Mara to be an actual demonic force, while other traditions (such
as Mahayana) approach Mara as more of a psychological construct. Secondly, the Buddha
learned of and practiced with the various spiritual traditions of his culture (the Jains, Ajivakas,
Materialists, and Skeptics). Third, before his awakening (enlightenment), the Buddha wrestled
with Mara.
Under the Bodhi tree, just before the Buddha‟s awakening, Mara is said to have employed
all his armies and tactics as a last attempt to remove the Buddha from the path to enlightenment.
As Mara tried to cause the Buddha to doubt his worthiness for enlightenment, the Buddha
“touched the earth asking for its witness that he was indeed worthy to become the Buddha”
(Mitchell, 2002, p. 18). The earth testified with an earthquake and sent the earth goddess to
vanquish Mara and his armies; Mara and his armies fled. The Buddha then passed through four
stages of meditation and into enlightenment. As he meditated through the night, he saw all of his
past lives (during the first watch, or evening); then the lives and deaths of all, or the whole of
existence (second watch, or midnight); finally, “[d]uring the third watch (late night), he
destroyed all mental and emotional impurities, selfish desires, false views, and ignorance”
(Mitchell, 2002, p. 19).
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 34
The Buddha was reluctant to teach. He did not believe anyone would receive him.
However, Sahampatī Brahmā (considered as the most reverenced god of that era) plead with him
to teach the people, “Please teach the Dharma, there will be some who can become Awakened”
(Mitchell, 2002, p. 20). Out of compassion for the people, he designed what is called “the middle
way,” as a model for teaching others to attain enlightenment. His teachings include the concepts
of the four noble truths, the eightfold path, impermanence, dissatisfaction, no-self, the five
aggregates, dependent co-arising, nirvana, karma and rebirth. Since the time of Buddha,
Buddhism has divided and adapted into many forms (traditions and schools of thought) to fit the
context of whatever culture it has encountered.
Radmila Moacanin (2003), in his book, The essence of Jung’s psychology and Tibetan
Buddhism: Western and Eastern paths to the heart, reviews the history of Tibetan Buddhism,
and Buddhism generally. Hinayana, “lesser vehicle,” is a form of Buddhism that developed in
Burma, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. “Hinayana stresses strict moral regulations and adherence to
austere vows of conduct. The ultimate goal is attainment of one‟s own salvation. . . . [T]he ideal
human being, is called an „arhat.‟” (p. 6). An arhat is a champion over passions. The Mahayana
or, “greater vehicle,” developed in Northern India, Mongolia, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan, Nepal,
Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Korea, and Japan.
Mahayana continues where Hinayana leaves off; the ultimate goal for adherents
of Mahayana is to seek salvation not for their own sake but for the benefit of all
beings. And this goal is no less than the attainment of Buddhahood. . . . Mahayana
emphasizes intuitive wisdom to remove the veil of ignorance obscuring our pure
essence, the buddha nature dwelling in all of us and which only needs to be
uncovered. (p. 6)
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 35
As we understand what we are and what we are not, we see that we are not what we thought; we
see ourselves as the same essence as and intimately connected to the entire universe.
Moacanin (2003) also comments that Buddhism has taken many, often contradictory,
forms. But, the Buddha would be happy with this, for each person in every social context
experiences unique problems (pp. 4-5). In other words, we each need a personalized path. This
concept of a personalized path toward enlightenment is often captured with the term, upaya.
Upaya is the Mahayana Buddhist concept that refers to whatever it takes to help a person or
humanity, progress toward enlightenment. You may often hear the goal of enlightenment being
compared with crossing to the other side of a river. Consider the craft upon which you ride as
upaya.
Each school of Buddhism will naturally have a “upayanic” method for its practitioners,
but here, I only want to clarify a few terms that are generally understood and used in Buddhism.
Enlightenment is to see reality as it is. It is to wake up, to possess an awareness of all things, or
to see that there is neither one who possesses nor are there things to possess. It is compared often
with salvation, because of the peace it yields:
All the water and drink you‟ve consumed
Through beginningless time until now
Has failed to slake thirst or bring you contentment.
Drink therefore this stream
Of enlightenment mind, fortunate ones.
(Milarepa, as cited in Kunga-Rinpoche & Cutillo, 1995, p. V)
Enlightenment implies nirvana. Nirvana is a “blowing out” or the “extinguishment” of the fire of
desire, it is to experience freedom from our desires which bind us down and keep us ignorant.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 36
The Buddha compared this fire to words like passion, hatred, and infatuation (Mitchell, 2003, p.
45, 50). If we remain caught by our desires, or wrapped up in the craving to satisfy ourselves, we
are bound to suffer without end. Endless suffering is captured by the term samsara, which is to
be born and born again into a world of ignorance. The way to enlightenment is the way to put a
stop to the cycle of samsara. Samsara is ignorantly living, ignorantly living is suffering, and
suffering is caused by our desires. This leads us to the four noble truths and the eightfold path.
The four noble truths and the eightfold path are concepts that Siddhartha organized as
pedagogy for attempting to teach to others the insights that he gained under the Bodhi tree. The
four noble truths and the eightfold path:
 1st noble truth: Duhkha: Life implies suffering. Suffering in this context does not
necessarily mean physical pain, but can be understood as discontentment or displeasure.
 2nd noble truth: The cause of Duhkha. All suffering is caused by desires
 3rd noble truth: Cessation of suffering through nirvana. There is a way to end suffering, it
is by ending our desires.
 4th noble truth: The path or the way to end suffering. The path to nirvana and
enlightenment. This is called the eightfold path.
The eightfold path is divided into three pillars: wisdom, ethics, and meditation.
Wisdom pillar
1. Right understanding
2. Right thought
Ethics (or action) pillar
3. Right speech
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 37
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
Meditation pillar
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration
For Buddhists, one only comes to know the truth of the teaching through practice. Buddhism is a
very proactive religion, in that more emphasis is placed on living the religion as opposed to
studying it. As one of my professors of Buddhism, Kenneth R. White, so often says about
Buddhism, “Practice is the norm for verifying truth.”
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 38
Chapter 3 – similarities and differences in Mormonism and Buddhism
We must be careful to understand how culture and even personal interpretation color the
use and meaning of language. This is true to such a degree that sometimes it is the case that the
same word means something entirely different to different parties. For this reason, I can only
attempt to compare and contrast Mormonism and Buddhism in a language that is purely of my
own understanding. If I say that the Mormon concept of God and the Buddhist concept of
Ultimate Reality are two different things, then it is fair for someone else to see them as the same
thing. Furthermore, it is possible that we are both right. Context and perspective are hardly
valued when they ought to be; other times they are over emphasized while the truth eludes us.
While Buddhism tends to use illusive and poetic language to direct the mind toward
enlightenment, the Mormon epistemology calls for a more literal use of language.
Durwood Foster (1987), in his article “Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Current Sticking
Points,” summarizes the main ideas from an interfaith conference in Honolulu, where the
objective was to discuss similarities and differences in Christianity and Buddhism. Foster
compares nirvana to the goal of heaven, ultimate reality to God, and the concept of suffering to a
necessary good. He illuminates that Buddhists see Christ as a bodhisattva (Foster, 1987, p. 170).
Mormons can see Buddha as a type and shadow of Christ; and likewise view bodhisattvas as
Christ-like persons.
Christianity, generally, will view Jesus as someone to believe in and follow, but
Mormons also see themselves as able to become like Christ. Therefore, Buddhists can see
themselves becoming like the Buddha (a bodhisattva), and Mormons can see themselves as
becoming like Christ (a Christian, in the Mormon sense). Bodhisattvas are personalities that have
completely demolished the ego and consequently they live for the benefit of all living; they
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 39
compassionately, and with wisdom, help to remove suffering and ignorance in the world. A
genuine bodhisattva is quite similar to how Mormons view what a genuine Christian ought to be
like.
As Mormonism is a Christian religion (by biblical standards, but arguable by general
theological standards), I will sometimes use Christian in place of Mormon where there is no
considerable discrepancy. In all other cases, I will be sure to clarify where concepts are
exclusively Mormon and not a general “Christian” idea. I do this because many of the parallels
between Mormonism and Buddhism are also found in Christendom generally. I may likewise
refer to Hindi, Taoist, or other Eastern concepts in a like manner. I will similarly clarify as
needed.
There are many obvious differences between the worldviews of Mormonism and
Buddhism. Take reincarnation, for example. Although Buddhists do not typically concern
themselves with matters not having to do with the “here and now,” some Buddhist thought takes
quite literally the idea of reincarnation, while other lines of thinking might see it as a
metaphorical symbol for a life without change; eternally caught in the cycle of rebirth or never
ending consequences of our desires. Mormonism does not currently speak to an idea of
reincarnation. Rather, Mormon doctrine speaks of post, present, and pre earth life. A person is
only born once into a mortal state, excepting in the possible cases where mothers who have lost
babies or small children may have an opportunity to yet raise those children at a later time.
Another difference is the very concept of doctrine. Mormonism claims to preach the one
and only true doctrine, while Buddhism teaches that there are infinite possibilities that may
produce enlightenment. A person may become enlightened while cleaning toilets or while
meditating on the top of a high mountain. Mormonism exonerates the language of scripture and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 40
Buddhism feels that language can get in the way of truth. For this reason, Buddhism uses koans,
which are intentional contradictions or paradoxes that cause the mind to travel outside the realm
of grammatical and linguistic parameters. However, it is important to emphasize that
Mormonism places the Holy Spirit as an essential influence for understanding what is being read
or taught. In this way, some Mormons are justified to feel the same way about language as a
Buddhist might, that scripture and prophetic teachings are only useful insofar as they point us to
a more correct reality that can only be shown and seen through the sprit.
Mormons find salvation and deliverance in Jesus. Buddhists see that liberation comes
when you are awakened to the truth of reality, as it really is. Jesus claimed to not only have the
way to salvation, but to be the way to salvation. The Buddha did not make exalted claims about
himself; he only claimed to have awoken from a deep sleep and felt to share his wisdom with
those who would listen.
Buddhists try to improve their moral behavior by removing their desires for things of the
world (wealth, power, pleasure, and attachment to things or people). Mormons try to improve
their moral behavior by repenting of immoral action and establishing a faith and hope in the
power of atonement, that Jesus redeems the sinner from all their sins. The Buddhist believes that
the power to change comes from within; while Mormons believe the power to change comes
from Jesus Christ through the power of his atonement. Buddhism often appears to be a very
personal journey while Mormonism appears as a very social or collective cause. However, how
things appear hardly reflects the reality. Buddhism is also very concerned with community action
and service, and Mormonism is very concerned with the personal experiences and growth of
individuals. Selfless service and personal sacrifice are paramount in both religions.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 41
Buddhism does not often speak about or concern itself with the existence of god(s). It is a
central theme in Mormonism to see, become like, and dwell with God. Also, worship services
are different. Mormons have rituals and sacrament services, Buddhists meditate. Mormon
services are formalized with structure and leadership, while Buddhist mediation groups are
conducted by lay persons with no authoritative position; all are seen as equals. However,
opposite examples are had in both religions. For example, inside Mormon temples there is a
general feeling of equality where all persons dress the same and participate in the ordinances.
Likewise, there are cases in Buddhism where a local community is visited by a reverenced figure
– such as a traveling monk, the Dalai Lama, other lamas, etc. A local sangha, community of
Buddhist practitioners, will often submit to a particular practice, prayer list, or meditation style
as dictated by an agreed upon leader or source material.
There are some similarities that I find to be more obvious, and we will consider other
parallels in a later section of this article. Both worldviews have central figures from where a
teaching sprouted and was thus propagated. In addition, both have many teachers that have come
since, who are considered great figures of the faith, persons who have expounded the doctrine of
Christ or illuminated the teachings of Siddhartha. The fundamental teachings of how one ought
to conduct their lives are almost identical, from the sayings of Jesus and the Buddha (to be
compared further in section 6).
The coming together of heart and mind is both a value in Mormon and Buddhist teaching.
Compassion and wisdom are fundamental to the Buddhist experience; they are likewise valued in
the Mormon experience. A constant and vigilant effort to obtain truth is had in both religions and
both stress devotion, fasting, and meditation. From the Mormon prophet, David O. Mckay:
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 42
We pay too little attention to the value of meditation, a principle of devotion. In
our worship there are two elements: One is spiritual communion arising from our
own meditation; the other, instruction from others. . . . Of the two, the more
profitable introspectively is the meditation. Meditation is the language of the soul.
It is defined as „a form of private devotion, or spiritual exercise, consisting in
deep continued reflection on some religious theme.‟ Meditation is a form of
prayer. . . . [It] is one of the most secret, most sacred doors through which we pass
into the presence of the Lord. (McKay, 2003, p. 31-32)
Although in Mormonism prayer is emphasized more that meditation, this Mormon prophet says
that “meditation is the language of the soul.” Buddhists could not agree more.
Truth, awakening, and enlightenment all ring as meaningful to both worldviews.
Buddhists would say that all truth is part of one great whole, and Mormons would agree. The
Buddha is known as the awakened one, or one who awoke. The Book of Mormon encourages us
to awake, “O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of hell…”
(2 Nehpi 1: 13). Both views see that humankind is ignorant or asleep to the truth, to reality as it
actually is.
We will continue this dialogue of similarities in section 6, but now is the time to
introduce the language by which I suggest we go about doing so.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 43
Chapter 4 – Archetype and Jung’s psychology
An archetypal pattern of behavior is assumed to exist when a
social phenomenon is found to be characteristic of all human
communities regardless of culture, race, or historical epoch.
-Abramson (2007, p. 116)
In this chapter, I will define archetype as a language that is spoken in symbol. Archetype,
like music and art, can transcend many boundaries or limitations that the process of translation
can impose. For this reason, one must cultivate a refined skill in hearing and seeing to be able to
speak the language of archetype. This story is not written by one who has such refinement. I am
like a curious man who stumbled across an ancient ruin and is trying to describe it to his friends.
Therefore, my language is not perfect nor is my description adequate and sufficient. But just as
symbol points the seer toward a meaning, this story is meant to point the hearer to a primeval and
present reality. Talented linguists, archeologists, psychologists, philosophers, theologians, and
others will more carefully style the conversation that I am only introducing. For this section,
however, I am going to briefly introduce some of the history of archetype. We will visit ancient
Greece and consider some contemporary work on the subject and then we will primarily consider
the approach of Carl Gustav Jung. Jung‟s approach to archetype is the primary engine to my
work.
It is valuable to note that much of the language used to discuss archetype has been
developed anciently. Teske (1998) tells us that the platonic world of ideas or forms has been
described as the “archetypal world of Plato”, that the world of intelligences is the archetypal
world (p. 118). Plato imagined or perceived some kind of archetypal world from which our
world sprang, or, that the world of ideas and intelligence precedes the world of forms, our world
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 44
(p. 120). Seen objects mimic real forms. The things understood and observed in the world are
shadows of real things. Understanding archetype is difficult, just as it was for the men in Plato‟s
cave to understand what the shadows on the wall really represented. Most are not even aware
that the shadows are not the things. Let us consider archetypes as the concepts out of which
perceived things originate. As an example, consider the Mormon and Buddhist view of the mind.
Each suggests that the mind is not the brain. Rather, the brain is a physical form that either
mimics or might interact with the mind. We might say that thoughts do not originate in the brain,
even though we can observe synaptic activity which corresponds with what we call thinking.
Doherty (1960) also takes us to ancient Greece, where some of the earliest conversations
on archetype originated: “Some claim, naturally enough, that this historic union of mind and
archetype occurred first under the influence of Aristotle who in Physics and Metaphysics
employed the term paradeigma as synonym for the logos immanent in the artist‟s mind” (p.63).
Doherty tells us that the Platonic idea of education was, in part, rooted in archetype and that,
“Text on text could be cited to exemplify the role of the Ideas as archetype” (p. 60). Archetype
could be defined as original forms, such as the world in which we now live was an archetypal
image in the mind of God before it was created. However, Plato‟s thinking was a bit more unique
or peculiar, in that he saw God as not the original designer of physical properties or human form,
because they are archetypal. In other words, God is only aware of the forms as they are and may
thus create physical realities according to archetypal forms (p. 61).
Plato‟s conception of the created world “makes the Demiurge [God] sustain the ordered
world in its mode of existence, after its initial ordering by a positive act of the demiurgic will.
Thus without the constant providence of the Demiurge the visible cosmos would return to its
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 45
primeval state of ataxis, chaos” (Doherty, 1960, p. 62). And that man, insofar as he is just, might
be archetypal of God himself:
Thus in the Republic the legislator for a model of his constitution contemplates
justice in nature and in men who, insofar as they are just, are said to be „in the
divine image and the divine likeness.‟ While these models are extrinsic to the
legislator, the just men themselves become somewhat archetypal in their
participated embodiment of justice. (p. 62)
It feels reasonable to me that all of what is seen with our natural senses is not reality as it is.
Solid objects are not solid objects when we have looked closer. Size and reference are arbitrary
assignments which are useful to a degree. However, we can challenge these ideas with a thought
experiment about scale, such as Einstein‟s question of what might it be like to be a photon?
E=MC² challenges our assumptions behind the notions of time, space, and matter. The most that
we can say about our physical world is that it is some kind of sign or symbol into the nature of
reality, as it really is. Yet, we might also say that reality perceived is reality as it is (or the only
one we‟re capable of understanding). And it is our capacity to perceive that has yet to be
explained. Or, the ability to ask questions (an archetypal theme) lends us to perceptions beyond
algorithmic observations.
With an introduction to archetype, I would like to place this into context of the human
condition or psyche. I will now provide an outline of Jung‟s psychology/philosophy; because his
theoretical construct which includes archetype is where I am most strongly coming from. We
will discuss archetype in greater detail, but first a general synopsis of the collective unconscious,
archetype, and individuation.
Collective unconscious
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 46
In Memories, dreams, reflections (1961), Jung argues that compassion or sympathy
toward all people is built into human nature and originates from the collective unconscious. “The
collective unconscious is common to all; it is the foundation of what the ancients called the
„sympathy of all things‟” (p. 138). For Jung, the collective unconscious was a source of endless
psychic material, for it contains the entirety of what can yet be known.
Jung thought that Freud‟s view of the unconscious as filled with repressed
childhood experiences of parental relationships was far too narrow. Jung saw the
unconscious not just as garbage dump, but as a collective unconscious of the
human race containing far more material than Freud thought. (Kessler, 2008, p.
149)
The collective unconscious also houses creative energy and archetypes, which Kessler refers to
as “psychological version of instincts” (p. 149). Archetype is the instinct through which
archetypal symbols are generated; be they in the form of poetry, architecture, drawing, painting,
behavior, myth, rhetoric, etc. Archetypes are found in the collective unconscious, according to
Jung, and this realm of consciousness might even be an archetypal symbol in and of itself
(consider Plato‟s world of ideas, Mormon concepts of an underlying Spirit World, Buddhist
interpretation of emptiness, the unifying principle, esoteric ideas of connectedness, science
fiction illustrations of mentally intertwined species, David Bohm‟s and Einstein‟s dissertations
on energy, Indra‟s net, the light of Christ, Unified Field Theory in physic, intuitive awareness,
the idea of „one in all, all in one‟, etc.)
Archetypes
In Jung’s map of the soul: An introduction (1998), Stein records, “The origin of Jung‟s
notion of archetypes can be traced back in his written works to the period between 1909 and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 47
1912 when, while still collaborating with Freud, he was investigating mythology and writing
Psychology of the Unconscious” (p. 89). Earlier, Stein states, “the theory of archetypes is critical
to Jung‟s overall conception of the psyche. In fact, it is the foundation” (p. 85)
[Jung‟s psychology] rests on the assumption that occult phenomena [supernatural,
mystical, or magical beliefs, or practices] can and do influence the lives of
everyone. Jung believed that each of us is motivated not only by repressed
experiences but also by certain emotionally toned experiences inherited from our
ancestors. (Feist & Feist, 2006, p. 98)
These “occult phenomena” manifest symbolically in our world as archetypes. Stevens (1983),
one who was more interested in scientific approach, refers to Jung‟s archetypes as universally
present in all humans, he speaks of them as “psychic and behavioural forms” (p. 14). He claims
that archetype informs the physical reality and that we are born with them as a type a psychic
characteristic. Therefore, the role of personal experience is to develop what is already there:
to actualize the archetypal potential already present in the psychophysical
organism, to activate what is latent or dormant in the very substance of the
personality, to develop what is encoded in the genetic make-up of the individual,
in a manner similar to that by which a photographer, through the addition of
chemicals and the use of skill, brings out the image impregnated in a photographic
plate. (p. 16)
Some, who appreciate Jung‟s concept of archetype, see it as an answer to the complexity of
human personality, and that archetype is somehow embedded in the genome. Stevens (1983)
relays what his analyst once said, “Jung had reconciled the highest achievement of the human
spirit with the base materials out of which that spirit has evolved. Jung had built a bridge
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 48
between Darwin and God!” (p. 16). I do not agree that archetype can be explained in such a way
as this, but I offer this last perspective nevertheless.
Jung‟s psychology lends itself to the affirmative study of religion, so it was not surprising
that Jung was discussed in my latest religious studies class. But Jung, like William James, is
interested in making sense of the personal human experience. He did not mean to establish a
universal theory. In fact, said he, “Theories in psychology are the very devil” (Spoto, 1989, p. 1).
Jung felt that each human animal was too unique and complex for modern science and
psychology to grasp. “For Jung, while both Freud‟s and Adler‟s theories were „true,‟ given their
respective assumptions, either one or both together were not true enough to the complexity of the
psyche as Jung knew and experienced it” (Spoto, p. 5). In other words, even “true” theories do
not fully capture the subject matter which they investigate.
Jung believed that archetypal patterns could be infinite in their manifestations. This is
important to our discussion, because it allows for observers of human phenomena to seek
patterns and connections across cultures and religions. These patterns can be deeply powerful
concepts or material from which we may build bridges across differing worldviews.
While we are speaking of connections, it is interesting to relate archetype to Max
Weber‟s ideal type. Spoto (1989) lends us this:
In Jungian psychology, archetypes are transhistorical or universal psychic
tendencies which are not representable in and of themselves [emphasis added],
but which are manifested in outer behaviors, symbolic forms, patterns, or images.
There is no telling how many archetypes exist, but they all share characteristics
[emphasis added] that are best thought of as primordial and collective in nature.
(p. 18)
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 49
With Weber‟s ideal types, we are given a symbolic way of talking about abstract concepts that
do not actually exist in reality. Likewise, archetype is a way of talking about abstract concepts of
the human experience, psyche, and nature which do exist.
I also find it useful to relate archetype to Rudolf Otto‟s numinous. Speaking of what a
doctor must understand about his neurotic patients, Jung says that an analyst must understand the
depths and value of mythic elements of the human experience. “A doctor who does not know of
the numinosity [emphasis added] of the archetypes will hardly know what to do with the negative
effects that stem from them. He will tend to over- or underestimate it, since he possesses only an
intellectual point of view but no empirical criterion” (Jung, 1961, pp. 144-45). In a similar way,
might we say that an experience with the archetype is different than an “intellectual” observation
that it exists?
Jung seems to suggest to us that the so-called intellectuals will often not understand basic
human experiences. Some aspects of human phenomena can only be grasped by direct contact
with the numinous or with the archetype. Archetypal language lends itself to a kind of
architecture for constructing our perception of reality into a more complete vision. Symbols,
connections, types and shadows, dependent co-arising, universality, eternal truths; these are
spoken of in great depth via the language of archetype.
Jung cut into the depths of unconsciousness. As Jung exposed himself to worldviews
from all over the world, he began to notice archetypal themes that develop (even in cultures that
are isolated from one another). Jung hypothesized that archetypal themes, which are deeply
embedded in religious and culture forms, stem from this collective unconscious; and all people
have access to this (independent of time and space), through their dreams. It is, in part, from this
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 50
source that religions emerge; art work and music manifest; and deeply held values of morality
and humanity find their roots.
Let us grapple with one final concept from Jung‟s psychology, the process of
individuation. Here, Jung encourages people to find wholeness through an awareness and
integration of their entire personhood.
Individuation
Jung saw a human potential for becoming whole, a process he called individuation. To
become whole, one must be aware of and willing to integrate all aspects of the self. This includes
the anima/animus (opposing gender within the psyche), the shadow, and all other conscious and
unconscious facets of a person. A kind of harmony or balance is necessary for the process of
individuation. For example, a man may not be very healthy if he is overly masculine and always
masking himself with a macho-man persona. For this man, Jung would suggest he integrate his
Anima (female aspect within the male). For example, the man might try nurturing a baby, crying
during a movie, or showing compassion more often. This integrating of all the aspects of our
personhood is what Jung calls individuation. How does one integrate all aspects of their
self? What is a self? M. L. Von Franz (Jung, 1964) in, Man and his symbols, addresses the
abstract concept of self through tribal notions of the “inner man” or “the great man”; in ancient
Greek culture, the term “daimon”; for the Egyptians, “Ba-soul”; and for the Romans, the
“genius.” Franz prefers to discuss these ancient concepts of the self, “because they are
uncontaminated by our civilized ideas and still have natural insight into the essence of what Jung
calls the Self” (p. 162). This is both Mormon and Buddhist. Mormonism references this “self” as
an intelligence, or acting agent within the spirit of man (D&C, section 93). Buddhism references
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 51
this “self” as the essence which is pure consciousness. As discussed earlier, the brain is not the
mind.
So, how does one access the content of their self and begin to integrate its aspects? Jung
observed that the ancients often placed more value into the content of their dreams than we do
today. Jung found that dreams follow a pattern, “the process of individuation” (Jung, 1964, p.
159). Jung calls individuation, “psychic growth” (p. 161), and explains that the Self can only be
comprehended through dreams. “The Self develops in ratio to how much the ego is willing to
pay attention to the deep content offered by the Self” (p. 163).
What holds us back from doing this? Perhaps, we too often look outside ourselves and
assess our progress or success in comparison to others. An ancient Chinese sage relates a story
about a tree whose wood was never valuable to carpenters. One night a carpenter is visited by a
tree that he cursed the day before (upset because its wood was of no value). The tree teaches the
carpenter that because its wood is not valuable, the tree lives a longer life. Von Franz (Jung,
1964) comments that the carpenter learns this lesson; “He saw that simply to fulfill one‟s destiny
is the greatest human achievement, and that our utilitarian notions have to give way in the face of
the demands of our unconscious psyche” (p. 165). In other words, our value is not based on how
we compare to, or how useful we are in reference to the outside world, but our value is
comprised of something entirely different. Perhaps what matters is the extent to which we have
become whole.
Not only must we give attention to the content of our dreams, to achieve individuation,
but we must become aware of the various aspects of the self. These other aspects can be talked
about as archetypal. There are five main aspects, from the outermost (conscious) to the innermost
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 52
(unconscious): the Persona, the Ego, the Shadow, the Anima/Animus, and the Self. Jung warns us
that his ideas are more like guidelines, so do not take this approach as objectively definitive:
Every individual is an exception to the rule. Hence one can never give a
description of a type, no matter how complete, that would apply to more than one
individual, despite the fact that in some ways it aptly characterizes thousands of
others. Conformity is one side of man, uniqueness is the other. (Jung as cited in
Spoto, 1989, p. 165)
Although every person is unique, and the process of individuation must be tailor-made for each
individual, Jung saw that children represent a clearer vision of wholeness – compared with
adults. As Jung noted “a characteristic of childhood is that, thanks for its naiveté and
unconsciousness, it sketches a more complete pictures of the self, of the whole man in his pure
individuality, than adulthood” (Jung, 1961, p. 244).
An important aspect of individuation, the process in which the ego develops, is explained
by Kessler (2008). The three stages of development are: dependency, autonomy (freedom), and
integration. “Each of these stages corresponds to levels of religious experience and the
mythological expression of religious ideas” (p. 150). Dependency corresponds to the archetype
of the great mother. Autonomy corresponds to the struggle toward independence; seen in the
hero archetype (struggle, conflict, suffering, sacrifice, and reward). The latter half of life, if
development is normal, will be dominated with religious symbol. “Spiritual paths to inner peace
and harmony emerge. Religious experiences of the harmony of all opposites, mystical unions,
and mystical marriages, speak with ever greater intensity and appeal as we grow older and enter
our final years” (Kessler, 2008, p. 150). Jung saw that:
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 53
gods, goddesses, saviors, spiritual teachers, and other spiritual beings are
frequently projections of the self-archetype. . . . once projected they can offer
advice and guidance to us as we work through our anxieties about the end of our
lives. . . . Gods are easier to deal with “out there” than “in here”. In some cases
divinity is understood as a higher spiritual self within everyone. (Kessler, 2008, p.
150)
Jung is not saying that god(s) or spiritual beings exist only as psychological constructs, but only
frequently. Furthermore, Jung places high value on the reality of psychic content. What is
experienced within is just as important, if not more important, than what happens in the world
around us or “outside” of us. Again, Jung hopes to see people integrate themselves into
wholeness. To do this, one cannot ignore any content that is delivered to the mind. Even “bad” or
“evil” content must first be considered before it is discarded.
Having at least surveyed some of Jung‟s approach to psychology, let us take a deeper
look at archetype; especially as we begin to consider the application of archetype to the
connections in Mormonism and Buddhism.
Archetype and Religion, what is the relation?
An essay by Vasavada (1968) will be particularly helpful to us. This is so, because I am
necessarily a Westerner, owing to my cultural heritage. Vasavada is an Easterner who has taken
the same approach to Jung and religion as I now do. It is a strange thing when a man has
happened upon an insight which he desires to share with the world, and then discovers that he is
hardly the first person who has considered what he thought was a most unique idea. Yet, how
perfectly thematic to a discussion on archetype, that my Western interpretation of psychology
and religion is also had among persons of the East. Forgive me as I quote at length from my
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 54
companion in spirit, but I want to be true to his words – for indeed an excess of my interpretation
is no friend to enlightenment.
Vasavada studied with and was a friend to Jung. On the subject of archetype and the image of
God that is in man, Jung said:
the religious-minded man is free to accept whatever metaphysical explanations he
pleases about the origin of these images; not so the intellect, which must keep
strictly to the principles of scientific interpretation and avoid trespassing beyond
the bounds of what can be known. . . . The scientist is a scrupulous worker; he
cannot take heaven by storm. Should he allow himself to be seduced into such an
extravagance he would be sawing off the branch on which he sits. (as cited in
Vasavada, 1968, p. 137)
Jung felt that the West had perversely gotten away from religion and spirituality. A key influence
in this tragedy was that man in the West had forsaken the language of spirit for a language of
science. Jung, however, was among the most brilliant and knowledgeable persons on the
scientific concepts of his day; Jung was thus able to speak their language:
Jung was obliged to talk to the scientists in their own language. This was the only
way through which man in the West could be made to experiment with his depth
and know his origin. It was the only way through which Jung could dispel the
mystery with which religion and religious experience had been surrounded for
ages and show that man‟s soul has a religious function within it. It is an empirical
fact and can be experienced; it is not opposed to science in the true sense of the
term. . .
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 55
Jung could not, it seems, express himself openly about this integral experience in
a richer way only because then he would not have been understood and the
destiny of his work would have remained unfulfilled; he would have been labelled
as another religious fanatic. . . . His main task throughout his life had been to lead
man to the psychic realm of archetypes and the experience of them. He left them
alone afterwards, to make of this experience what they liked.
In spite of being a deeply religious man, surcharged all over, and suffused with
the richness of experience, he donned the robe of a psychologist and a doctor. He
would not have done this had he been in the East. To people who have grown
highly intellectual and for whom religion is a fixed dogma away from one‟s inner
life, confrontation with the irrational was the surest way to open their eyes. In
order to keep company with the scientist and man in the West, he went all the way
with the scientific procedure and showed how these experiences could be
understood scientifically. (Vasavada, 1968, p. 141-42)
Jung surely is criticized for his irrationality. On the knowledge of God and of truth, Jung said
that, “[i]f he can formulate it more or less, then he can more easily integrate it with
consciousness, talk about it more reasonably and explain its meaning a bit more rationally. But
he does not possess it more or in a more perfect way than the man who cannot formulate the
„possession‟” (As cited in Vasavada, 1968, p. 138). I hope to encourage a new way of seeing
things as they really are, and this next quote does well to illustrate this point.
In the light of the present state of religion which does not inspire living faith in
man, where God and the kingdom of heaven is either understood to be outside
oneself or among us (not within us), Jung very correctly shows that his
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 56
psychology opens a way through which one can experience God with himself and
that the soul of man contains within himself „. . . the equivalents of everything
that has been formulated in dogma and a good deal more‟. Thus taking issue with
dogmatic religion and the Church, he shows how his psychology is an art of
seeing the truth. „It is high time we realized that it is pointless to praise the light
and preach it if nobody can see it. It is much more needful to teach people the art
of seeing. . . . In order to facilitate this inner vision we must clear the way for the
faculty of seeing.‟ (p. 137)
Michael Fordham (2010) also observed that the religious perspective must be brought into the
world of psychology, to understand the human being. He speaks of the “fire in the soul” that all
analysts will come across (p. 622), a sort of religious spirit. The religious spirit is archetypal in
human beings, it says something about the reality that exists under the mirage of the limited
perceptions of the physical eye.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 57
Chapter 5 – Applying Archetype
The archetypes governing the collective unconscious
influence the appearance of characteristic collective
behavior in a given community. This, among other things,
is manifested in the “national character,” meaning, in
particular, dominating traits that are easily recognizable
by people outside the group
Weglowska-Rzepa et al. (2008, p. 60)
Our rapidly changing world
We live in a time where worldviews are coming into contact with each other like never
before. Jung‟s approach to comprehending the human psyche allowed him to have a more
generous, open, and favorable attitude toward religion. Perhaps by comedic satire, Jung said, “It
is a fact, which is constantly and overwhelmingly apparent in my practical work, that people are
virtually incapable of understanding any point of view other than their own” (as cited in Spoto,
1989, p. 55). Elsewhere, Jung offers why the West struggles with Eastern paradigms:
[T]he West loves clarity and unambiguity; consequently, one philosopher clings
to the position “God is,” while another clings equally fervently to the negation
“God is not.” What would these hostile brethren make of an assertion like the
following: „Recognizing the voidness of thine own intellect to the Buddhahood,
and knowing it at the same time to be thine own consciousness, thou shalt abide in
the state of the divine mind of the Buddha.‟ Such an assertion is, I fear, as
unwelcome to our Western philosophy as it is to our theology. (Jung, 1958, p.
285)
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 58
Jung‟s life pursuit was to understand the psyche. Given that his framework for this was the
psychoanalytical approach, he was very concerned with qualities and aspects of consciousness.
This is perhaps one reason Jung could so easily appreciate Eastern modes of thinking; Eastern
philosophers have, from ancient date, considered the nature of consciousness. For example, the
Tibetan book of the dead (TBD) deals with levels of consciousness. In fact, as Jung explains, the
TBD belongs well in Mahayana generally, because it deals so thoroughly with the human psyche
(Jung, 1958, p. 284). Jung said, “The psyche is a whole in which everything is connected with
everything else” (as cited in Spoto, 1989, p. 109). This concept of the psyche corresponds well
with the Buddhist concept of one reality, or that emptiness is form and form is emptiness. Yet, as
we have mentioned earlier, even Western culture is decorated with images and themes of unity
and connectedness.
In the introduction to a translation of the Tibetan book of the dead, Jung wrote, “I am sure
that all who read this book with open eyes, and who allow it to impress itself upon them without
prejudice, will reap a rich reward” (Jung, 1958, p. 284). Such is the rhetoric in Mormonism,
“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal
Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart,
with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of
the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Book
of Mormon, Moroni 10: 4-5).
If, in your mind, you are able to understand and see how two or more worldviews or
religions are speaking of the same fundamental reality or truth, you are able to learn the language
of archetype. The language of archetype is for those with eyes to see and ears to hear; it allows
for sharing across boundaries that are not so easily crossed. This is why archetype matters,
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 59
because our world seems to be dividing quickly into many worlds that are safely secure behind
the veil of technological development and cosmopolitan fantasies. In other words, it seems that
we are nestling into false senses of comfort, convenience and security as never known before in
the history of the human race. Even if our world and lives are under no particular threat,
archetype does provide an interesting model for improving understanding and dialogue between
worldviews.
Using archetype to cut through the veil of culture
In 1981, Weglowska-Rzepa and colleagues were mindful that the world was moving
toward globalization and that there were contentions over ideological and economic issues. In
Poland and South Korea, they looked for the influence of various archetypes on informing
respective cultural manifestations. Controlling for similarities in each country‟s histories, they
found that there was a common thread in how people from each nation received and reacted to
archetypal content (p. 69). Considering their task, they asked:
What do the East and West or South Korea and Poland have in common?
Seemingly, there are more differences than similarities between them. Still,
asking such a question allows us to go beyond schematic thinking and focusing
exclusively within the circle of our own culture. Asking this question also enables
us to find connections between the consciousness and unconsciousness, between
the rational and irrational aspects of human life. (p. 61)
It is too often the case that we judge instead of understand. It is commonplace to dichotomize
ourselves in relation to anything or everything else. In response, the Buddhist and Christian
message is to lose the self, become one, and wake up to the truth. This is not easily done, but the
archetypal approach begs for a paradigm that makes these religious or spiritual goals a more
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 60
attainable possibility. The archetypal approach shows that such goals are agreed upon, generally.
If these premises are accepted one can quite easily admit that archetypal language can likewise
be useful for peace and interfaith dialogue.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 61
Chapter 6 – Archetypal analysis of Mormonism and Buddhism
What would an archetypal analysis of Mormonism and Buddhism look like? What would come of
it? As it just so happens, a Mormon and a Buddhist once discussed this very idea. I have part of
a transcript from their exchange:
M: What do you think would happen if I would have been born in the East and raised as a
Buddhist, and you were born in the West and raised as a Mormon or a Christian?
B: It has probably happened.
M: Let me try again. If at the very moment you and I were born (talking about this life,
right now) our souls were switched. Do you think that I would have still become a
Christian and you become a Buddhist?
B: I haven‟t ever met a child that is as inquisitive as you. I know of no one who
constantly thinks and wonders about so many strange and peculiar things.
M: . . .
B: How do you hope that I answer your question?
M: I don‟t know, I‟m just wondering to what extent the world around us colors the way
that we interpret the truth. For example, I cannot conceive of any other truth than that
which I have come to know and love. I am certain that what I believe is true. In fact, I
know that what I know is what I know.
B: So, you wonder how it is that I can believe the things that I do, despite our friendship
and our coming to understand each other on every point of doctrine or saying? Why is it
that you can see me as wise and value my point of view, and that I likewise honor you
and your faith, but we nevertheless ascribe to different worldviews?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 62
M: Yes! If we can find such harmony upon the deepest concepts of the cosmos; if we can
discover connection after connection between our worlds; if we can continually uncover
the ways that language has veiled the truth; if we are able to see that your word for this is
my word for that; how is it that you remain a Buddhist and I a Mormon?
B: Have there been other men and women in the history of the world who have lived by
and known truth but who were neither Mormon nor Buddhist?
M: Yes
B: What were they?
M: They were just people, good people, who did good things on the earth while they
lived.
B: Is it possible that they, like us, identified themselves with a particular religion or
worldview?
M: It is likely that it was so.
B: Is it also possible that there are other people in the world today who could join our
conversation and likewise be agreeable, honest, and as true to the truth as they are able to
be?
M: It is likely that it is so.
B: Then, if our places were switched, it seems that we would each go about doing good in
much the same way that we now aim to do.
M: Yet, we disagree on many points, do we not?
B: Such as?
M: Jesus Christ, for example. I am certain that he will come again to the earth and
establish a true order of justice and peace.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 63
B: That sounds wonderful, how can I disagree with that?
M: Well, you‟re not a Christian, are you?
B: That depends upon the judge.
M: Am I a Buddhist?
B: Sometimes I think you are a better one than I, sometimes not.
M: Ha. I think I‟m too much a fool to be a Buddhist.
B: Now you are a better Buddhist than I.
M: Right, the whole humility thing. . . So, let me ask you this. In Mormonism we talk of
types and shadows. We say that all things testify of Jesus Christ; even the very earth is a
witness to his name. A type and shadow is something that represents another thing that is
yet to be. For example, Abraham was required to sacrifice his first born son. This is a
type and shadow of Christ, the first born of God, who would be sacrificed. Isaac was to
be sacrificed on an altar which would represent atonement for sin; likewise, Jesus was
sacrificed to make atonement.
Following this line of thinking, to me, the Buddha is a type and shadow of Jesus Christ. I
see the Buddha as fulfilling a divine mission to testify to and show the world what the
Savior of all humankind would be like. Many prophets of the Old Testament can be
shown in this same light. Moses, who delivered the house of Israel, thus brought
salvation to the Jews. In our day, we say that all who will come unto Christ are adopted
into the house of Israel and they are thus saved through Jesus Christ. My question is
specifically about the Buddha, what think you of my interpreting his life as a type of
Jesus?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 64
B: It is sound and reasonable thinking. It is an archetypal way of seeing the world, to look
for patterns and connections across time and space.
M: Like the Mara and Satan similarities?
B: Yes
M: Interesting; I have actually wanted to have a conversation with you about the
connections between our religions, for some time now. Would you be willing to talk
about or identify every “archetypal” similarity between Mormonism and Buddhism that
we can discover?
B: Every similarity!? I am good for one hundred and eight, but then I will tire.
M: Very good! I wasn‟t thinking we would get past ten… We already know about how
Mara tempted Siddhartha three times, just as the Devil tempted Jesus three times. And I
think it is very interesting how Buddhism, generally, seems to talk about Mara as a
shadow side of the self or that Mara is the part within each of us that keeps us ignorant by
distracting us with desires. The difference with Satan is that we speak of him as an
outside force or spirit that tries to penetrate our thoughts with temptation.
B: If they both have the same effect on sentient beings, does it matter whether it is an
exterior or interior construct?
M: Do you remember when we had a conversation about whether or not the truth
matters?
B: Yes, but we are looking for types, for archetypes, we are not trying to determine
whether or not two different things are the same thing.
M: Ok. . . I see your point, you win. Why don‟t you lead our dialogue?
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 65
B: As you wish. Consider the miracles that Jesus and the Buddha wrought. Both had
supernatural powers. Jesus and the Buddha walked on water, and the Buddha caused
water to dry up so that people could walk through on dry ground. Both healed many and
showed wonders to them that would believe. Next, consider their teachings. There is no
end to the parallels. The Buddha said, “Consider others as yourself”, Jesus said, “Do unto
other as you would have them do to you”. They each recommended to “turn the other
cheek” to an offender. Also: love your enemies; don‟t judge others without seeing your
own folly; you cannot walk two paths or serve two masters; riches make it hard to not
sin; blessed are the poor; go forth to teach the people, without possessions; whether the
widow‟s mite or a handful of dust, both can be good gifts; store up righteousness not
treasures on earth; beware of false teachers and false prophets; sin or desires enslaves the
person; Mara and Satan desire to make one stumble and fall, to ruin and destroy the soul;
and on and on do they agree. Some Buddhists study the teachings of Jesus, because he
can be seen as a great bodhisattva.
M: Impressive; I usually just think of how Jesus said to leave family and follow him and
that the Buddha teaches to renounce family, possessions, worldly ambitions in order to
follow the religious path to nirvana.
B: If you read the sayings of the Buddha, you will find virtually the same doctrines as
given in the Sermon on the Mount, and in many of Jesus‟ other teachings.
M: What I find quite interesting are all the similarities between their life narratives. I
remember a few things from a comparative religion course. Jesus was chosen for his
mission before he was born; so too was the Buddha looking over the earth for the right
moment to be born into it. Both did not have a mortal father, rather, each was
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 66
miraculously conceived. When they were just babies, both were recognized by spiritual
leaders as significant persons who would influence the world. Both were brilliant
children who seemed to understand more than the average person about the world. And,
what is it about people starting a ministry in their thirties?
B: Not too young, not too old. Many religious figures find that that is a nice time to
preach and find that they have the maturity or willingness to die for their cause.
M: How about their ability to discern spirits and understand human suffering to a
seemingly infinite degree? I know how Mormonism explains this fact about Jesus… Does
Buddhism address how such a thing is possible for the Buddha?
B: Quite so; perfect empathy that comes from total awareness.
M: How was this perfect or total awareness obtained?
B: It was as the sage made an ultimate and persistent effort to receive enlightenment
mind. Would you like to hear the story of how Gautama woke up?
M: Without delay, my friend.
B: You are most impatient, dear one. The Buddha vowed to stay under the fig tree in
Bodh Gaya for all eternity if that is what it took to obtain the truth!
M: Very well, I trade my haste for patience.
B: Close your eyes. . . Imagine that you have just had a vision of the whole world, and
that you can feel and see suffering in the minds and hearts of all people. Now imagine
that you begin to remember hundreds of past lives; you can see yourself as a beetle
crawling across the hot desert and then as a sparrow soaring through the air and you also
feel the pain and yearning for survival, for something to eat. Next, you feel sharp claws
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 67
tearing your body apart and you look back to see a lion has caught you, because your
hooves could not give you the speed necessary for escape.
You begin to understand suffering and pain, but you yearn for something better. Now,
you are born as monkey and you have a family, a sense of community. Pain and suffering
are shared within communal bonds. Now you are born as a human; whether you
understand the significance or not, you find that you have an incredible faculty for
questioning the world in a most peculiar way. You love your childhood, you discover
something new each day, and you continue to learn until you die.
You are born again, this time with greater awareness. People look up to you, you are a
leader and a friend to many, and you die. Again, you find yourself traversing a mortal
experience, but now, more than ever, you are hungry for the truth – you want to
understand what life is all about. You have seen suffering before, you recognize a strange
feeling when you hear about tortured and battered children, you cry. Your heart weeps as
you look into the world and see mothers, fathers, children, students, teachers, soldiers,
and others who suffer. You understand that they are more innocent than they judge each
other to be. You can see that they are ignorant of the true nature of reality. Again, you
weep. You love them, you have compassion for them, but you do not know what to do.
You make an endless effort to vigilantly “change the world”; you serve humanity all the
day long. In another life, you serve all living creatures, and you realize that those in the
human condition are most ripe for awakening – they are most capable of beholding the
truth. If only you could help a few of them see the truth, maybe they could experience
some sense of freedom, maybe they would join your cause to have compassion upon all
sentient beings. Again, you die. Now, open your eyes.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 68
M: . . . that was beautiful
B: Close your eyes again. You are upon a very high mountain, you are aware that there is
suffering in the entire world, but now you begin to see harmony, a balance that sustains
the entirety of the cosmos. You see a brother and a sister who are orphaned and on the
streets. The four year old boy protects his toddler sister from the elements. Miraculously,
he finds scraps of food and they navigate their circumstances with uncontestable
resilience. You are in pain as you feel for them, but suddenly a husband and wife who
could not conceive children of their own find these two little ones hiding behind a
dumpster during a very cold night. Before they arrive, your heart is about to break with
sorrow, but both the man and the woman turn the corner and halt for only a moment.
Then, they run to the children, they tear off their coats and cloth the little ones. They try
to ask the children where they are from, but it is only too obvious from their rags and a
small sack of what are hardly belongings that these children have no home.
The children are too weak to resist, so they find themselves in a cozy home, they are
nurtured to good health, and eventually they comprehend the word kindness. Many years
later, they embrace their parents for the first time when they finally are able to
comprehend love. Open your eyes.
M: …
B: Close your eyes. You are now traveling in and out of time. You are observing millions
of worlds going in and out of existence. You have now witnessed incalculable acts of
kindness and love, hatred and violence. You return to the top of a very high mountain and
you behold that you are nothing. You are everything. You comprehend all life, you are
life, you are death, and you are nothing. At this point in his meditation, the Buddha had
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 69
passed through two watches of night and two levels of mediation. Now, as though you
are the Buddha, you have seen all your past lives, you have seen all the lives of all living
things; past, present, and future. There is one final stage of mediation that you must pass
through. Once you have done this, you have a perfect heart of compassion and wisdom.
M: What is this final stage?
B: It is the most sacred teaching of Buddhism. It is to lose yourself so completely that
you become one. This is the essence of the Buddhist teaching – emptiness, or that there is
no-self
M: So, the Buddha‟s ministry, which he offers out of the compassion of his heart, is the
hope that his disciples might also become one, as he has become one. Six hundred years
later, Jesus is praying and teaching the exact same doctrine! This seems like some kind of
archetypal theme, this unifying principle.
B: Yes, and I now bid you share with me how your heart has received this archetype.
M: I should have gone first, you had me in tears and I hardly think I can narrate in such a
manner. But I will try. I am more dogmatically oriented than you, yet I believe the
scriptures say things well, so I will defer primarily to them.
Enoch, in the book of Moses is shown the whole human family and he “looked upon their
wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart
swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook” (Moses 7:41).
Bowels, especially „bowels of mercy‟ are central to how Mormonism understand the
compassion of Christ. Ammon spoke “that God is mindful of every people, whatsoever
land they may be in. . . and his bowels of mercy are over all the earth” (Alma 26:37). And
Alma is well known for his prophecy of Jesus, “And he shall go forth, suffering pains and
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 70
afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which
saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. And he will take
upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will
take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy [emphasis
added], according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his
people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:11-12). Now close your eyes.
B: . . .
M: Ok, open them. Just seeing if you are paying attention.
B: I‟m sorry, what was that?
M: Moving on. . . Abinadi states that Jesus has conquered death and can mediate for all
men, “Having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of
men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon
himself their iniquity and their transgressions. . .” (Mosiah 15: 9, emphasis added).
Joseph Smith cries out in his writing, “Thy mind, O man! If thou wilt lead a soul unto
salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the
darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity – thou must commune with God.”, and in
the same letter, “Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the
household of faith” (as cited in Peters, 1999, p. 35 & D&C 121:45).
A Mormon scholar, John Peters, speaks of the bowels of mercy as the place of shared
humanity, the place from where we weep when see the children that you have placed into
our minds. He says that mercy, in Latin is “a heart of pity” from the word misericordia.
The idea is that Jesus received the bowels of mercy through the atoning process. It is
understood in Mormon thought that Jesus had an ultimate awakening experience in the
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 71
garden of Gethsemane, the night before his crucifixion. This is how his bowels were
filled with mercy.
There, Jesus had an experience that was typified 600 years earlier by Siddhartha
Gautama, as you have demonstrated. Like the Buddha, Jesus was shown the entirety of
all sentient lives; past, present, and future. The product was the same; he was filled with
compassion and wisdom. Elder Bateman recently said, “The Savior, as a member of the
Godhead, knows each of us personally… In the garden and on the cross, Jesus saw each
of us and not only bore our sins, but also experienced our deepest feelings so that he
would know how to comfort and strengthen us…” (Bateman, 1995).
B: Why do Christians so often tell this story so punitively, that Jesus “paid” for their
sins? There might exist a higher respect for Christianity if there were more talk on how
Jesus actually saves and enlightens.
M: I have asked many times, as a Christian, how is it made possible? What are the
mechanisms or reasons behind the function of the atonement? There seems to be a strong
tradition of accepting dogma based on good feelings, but the Lord says he reveals truth to
the heart AND mind. To me, this implies that understanding comes when both thoughts
and feelings agree upon a point of doctrine.
My favorite words in scripture which illuminate the concept of atonement are spoken by
Amulek. He states that no man can shed his blood to atone for another, so an infinite
atonement is necessary. Somehow someone needs to provide a sacrifice so deep and so
intimate and so eternal that all can be healed thereby. Amulek testifies that Jesus Christ
performs this act. “And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his
name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy,
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 72
which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith
unto repentance” (Alma 34: 15, emphasis added).
Amulek has me convinced that a vicarious death cannot suffice to redeem us, despite this
being the outward symbol of Christ‟s atonement. Instead, Amulek persuades me that
something deeper actualizes the power by which we are healed.
B: What is this something deeper?
M: Merrill Bateman (1996) put it this way, “The Savior's atonement in the garden and on
the cross is intimate as well as infinite. Infinite in that it spans the eternities. Intimate in
that the Savior felt each person's pains, sufferings, and sicknesses. Consequently, he
knows how to carry our sorrows and relieve our burdens that we might be healed from
within, made whole persons, and receive everlasting joy in his kingdom” (p. 49). I‟m not
sure what to call it; other than love, compassion, empathy, and a hope for wholeness and
unity.
B: A unifying archetype. It is purely and flawlessly evident that Jesus and Siddhartha
demonstrate the archetype of emptiness, the unifying principle of the cosmos.
For further reading on the Buddha‟s enlightenment, consider Kessler (2008, pp. 135-138); and
Mitchell (2002, pp. 18-20).
Personal reflections
In this piece, you now hear the personal feelings and reflections of a Mormon and a
Buddhist, who have considered the dialogue above. The authors of the following statements will
remain anonymous.
Mormon reflections: After reading, praying about and reflecting on the content within
this discussion and the chapters that correspond, I have felt a very strong acceptance of this line
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 73
of thought and others like it. If we are to help souls come unto Christ and be saved, this interfaith
dialogue should be a more common model of conversation. These types of conversations awaken
us to the reality that the vast majority of religions are built on very similar foundations. To me,
this is a testimony that there is a God and there is a unifying truth; a common vein of thought that
we all should live within. If the world would set the differences aside and look at the similar
attributes within the faiths, humanity would be much more united and closer to that deity that it
professes to believe. I enjoyed this very much and hope to see thoughts similar to this to take the
forefront of the world‟s mentality towards others and their beliefs.
Buddhist reflections: In Buddhism, we believe that anyone can achieve Buddha status
once she/he has reached enlightenment. To me, Jesus is someone who has reached enlightenment
and I pray to Jesus sometimes as well. Both religions strive to do the best to be kind and
compassionate. In Buddhism, our goal in practicing the teachings of Buddha is to gain the
wisdom and see reality as it is (through unfoggy glasses). While the practice and worship may
be different, Mormonism and Buddhism are similar in that they both advocate for people to do
good for others and the world. This conversation in your paper reminds me once again that we all
have the same goal---to do good and to benefit the world, no matter what our religion is.
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 74
Chapter 7 – The value of archetypal analysis; yesterday, today and tomorrow
It appears that some persons are more naturally
endowed with expanded worldviews. Gandhi,
Mother Theresa, Buddha, Jesus, Einstein, Emerson,
and the like are a few examples who seem to have
expanded, expanding, or more mature worldviews
through which they see and talk about the world.
Landon Hasson (2013, p. 46)
I have been profoundly changed through my archetypal analysis of both faith traditions. I
found it fascinating to uncover the archetypal narrative about the principle of ultimate empathy
and compassion that both Jesus and the Buddha attained. Yet, I don‟t think my words are
complete for capturing these remarkable experiences and speaking to their value. Of course, I
refer to when the Buddha meditates under the Bodhi tree (a fig tree), and he experiences all life –
all deaths and births, etc. Only one other religion in the world tells the same story (that I am
aware of), it is the Mormon narrative of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. I think this story
matters. For both Mormonism and Buddhism, the outcome for Jesus and the Buddha are the
same, they each come away with compassion and wisdom for the entirety of all sentient life,
including humans. I‟ve thought of calling it, “the archetype of empathy.” I am not sure, yet, if
that will do.
Whatever we call this connection, Mormons can see value in this discussion, because of
the concept of “types and shadows” of Christ. The idea being that God calls, organizes, or
orchestrates personages in history to represent the advent of the Messiah. Likewise, Buddhists
can see value in this discussion because the most important figure of Buddhism seems to have
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 75
informed the central theme of Mormonism, the atonement of Christ. Each worldview might
naturally claim the others‟ story as their own, but both faiths can increase their respect and
understanding for each other as they understand how the same archetypal pattern has informed a
sacred concept. The value comes when one sees archetypal patterns as verifying or adding
context to truths held as sacred.
Looking across the world, we see certain themes that consistently unfold without regard
to space or time; it might be wise of us to take those themes and look for them within ourselves;
or to at least ask why such themes continue to emerge. For example, “Why is compassion toward
helpless beings archetypically demonstrated in artwork, religion, instinctive reactionary
behavior, etc.,” “Why do all cultures have a personification of evil?” Stephen Batchelor (2004), a
Buddhist trained in western modes of thinking talks of Satan and Mara, “The figure who tempts
Christ in the wilderness plays the same wily game as does Mara against Buddha” (p. 29). How
about selflessness? How many religions or worldview promote this idea? Why do archetypal
patterns emerge, and what do we learn about ourselves, our humanity, and our world?
Toward interfaith dialogue
Moacanin (2003) warns, “Militarism, materialism, and consumerism have run amok to
the point of drowning Western civilization and rapidly infecting the rest of humanity. Together
they emphasize the external and disregard the inner world [emphasis added]. As a result our
world is not only blind but unconscious and asleep” (p. vii). Continued:
Yet, there is a trend in Western society of a growing interest in spiritual
transformation, openness to larger dimensions, and self-realization, which Tibetan
Buddhism and the work of Jung are all about. Tibetan Buddhism has become
relatively well known, especially since the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel
ARCHETYPE IN MORMONISM AND BUDDHISM 76
Peace Prize in 1989. Jung is not so well known, not even by Western Psychology.
(p viii)
I value the work of Carl Jung, the enlightened perspectives generously offere